Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANGELO DWIGHT PENSON v. SPS. MELCHOR AND VIRGINIA MARANAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 175380 2010-03-22	GREGORIO ESPINOZA v. UNITED OVERSEAS BANK PHILS. CORONA, J.
By its very nature, an ex parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession is a non-litigious proceeding.[8] It is a judicial proceeding for the enforcement of one's right of possession as purchaser in a foreclosure sale. It is not an ordinary suit filed in court, by which one party sues another for the enforcement of a wrong or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.[9]
	GR No. 157659 2010-01-25	ELIGIO P. MALLARI v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM BERSAMIN, J.
The proceeding upon an application for a writ of possession is ex parte and summary in nature, brought for the benefit of one party only and without notice being sent by the court to any person adverse in interest. The relief is granted even without giving an opportunity to be heard to the person against whom the relief is sought.[43]Its nature as an ex parte petition under Act No. 3135, as amended, renders the application for the issuance of a writ of possession a non-litigious proceeding.[44]
	GR Nos. 175728 & 178914 2009-05-08	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PRIME NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TINGA, J.
It is ministerial upon the court to issue a writ of possession after the foreclosure sale and during the period of redemption. The governing law, Act No. 3135, as amended, in Section 7 thereof, explicitly authorizes the purchaser in a foreclosure sale to apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period by filing an ex parte motion under oath for that purpose in the corresponding registration or cadastral proceeding in the case of property with Torrens title. Upon the filing of such motion and the approval of the corresponding bond, the law also in express terms directs the court to issue the order for a writ of possession.[29] The writ of possession issues as a matter of course even without the filing and approval of a bond after consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in the name of the purchaser.[30]
	GR Nos. 175728 & 178914 2009-05-08	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PRIME NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TINGA, J.
But the rule is not without exception. Under Section 35,[31] Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which is made suppletory to the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages by Section 6 of Act 3135, as amended, the possession of the mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in the extrajudicial foreclosure unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor. Thus, in the cited case of Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals,[32] the Court held that the obligation of a court to issue an ex parte writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale ceases to be ministerial once it appears that there is a third party in possession of the property who is claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor.[33] This is substantiated by the Civil Code which protects the actual possessor of a property. The discussion in Philippine National Bank on this matter is informative:Under [Article 433[34] of the Civil Code], one who claims to be the owner of a property possessed by another must bring the appropriate judicial action for its physical recovery. The term "judicial process" could mean no less than an ejectment suit or reivindicatory action in which ownership claims of the contending parties may be properly heard and adjudicated.
	GR NO. 165963 2007-09-03	SPS. NORBERTO OLIVEROS AND ELVIRA OLIVEROS v. PRESIDING JUDGE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
By its very nature, an ex parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession is a non-litigious proceeding authorized under Act No. 3135 as amended.[21]
	GR NO. 150066 2007-04-13	SPS. EMMANUEL AND EDNA CHUA AND SPS. MANUEL AND MARIA CHUA v. MSGR. VIRGILIO SORIANO. SUBSTITUTED BY SISTER MARY VIRGILIA CELESTINO SORIANO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
An examination of the assailed SPA shows that it is valid and regular on its face. It contains a notarial seal.[38] A notarial seal is a mark, image or impression on a document which would indicate that the notary public has officially signed it.[39] The long-standing rule is that documents acknowledged before a notary public have the evidentiary weight with respect to their due execution and regularity.[40] The assailed SPA is a notarized document and therefore, presumed to be valid and duly executed.