This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-04-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| A purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right after consolidation of ownership for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property.[1] The exceptions to this rule are at the heart of this petition for review tiled pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, primarily assailing the 31 May 2007 Decision[2] rendered by the Nineteenth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00593,[3] the decretal portion of which states: | |||||
|
2013-04-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| On 1 December 2004, the RTC issued an order, holding in abeyance the issuance of the writ of possession sought by UCPB. Citing equity and substantial justice as reasons for its disposition, the RTC ruled that the pendency of Civil Case No. 6180 necessitated the suspension of the grant of UCPB's petition since there was a possibility that the latter's foreclosure of the mortgage may be adjudged violative of the Spouses Tolosa's rights as mortgagors. While conceding that the issuance of a writ of possession is ministerial as a general rule, the RTC held that said function ceases to be of said nature where the grant of the writ "will prejudice another pending case for the nullification of the auction sale" and "might work inequity and injustice to mortgagors."[17] With its motion for reconsideration of the foregoing order[18] further denied for lack of merit in the RTC's Order dated 31 January 2005,[19] UCPB filed its Rule 65 petition for certiorari which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00593 before the CA.[20] | |||||