Lawyerly

GR No. 162757

2013-12-11

UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. CHRISTOPHER LUMBO

BERSAMIN, J.

It was of no consequence at all that UCPB made its ex parte application for the writ of possession the action (Special Proceedings No. 5884) when Civil Case No. 5920 (in which the respondents were seeking the annulment of the foreclosure and the stoppage of the consolidation of title, among other reliefs sought) was already pending in the RTC, for the settled jurisprudence is to the effect that the pendency of an action for the annulment of the mortgage or of the foreclosure sale does not constitute a legal ground to prevent the implementation of a writ of possession.[26]

GR No. 173349

2011-02-09

SAMUEL U. LEE v. BANGKOK BANK PUBLIC COMPANY

VELASCO JR., J.

Even as a general rule, "[t]he period of redemption is not tolled by the filing of a complaint or petition for annulment of the mortgage and the foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to the said mortgage,"[86] Bangkok Bank, however, filed its action for rescission way beyond the expiration of the said redemption period on July 20, 1999. After the expiration of the redemption period, Asiatrust as purchaser, therefore, became the absolute owner of the subject properties, and whose rights necessarily include the right to be in the legal possession of the properties.[87]

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 court can neither halt nor hesitate to issue the writ of possession. It cannot exercise any discretion to determine whether or not to issue the writ, for the issuance of the writ to the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes a ministerial function.[41] Verily, a marked distinction exists between a discretionary act and a ministerial one. A purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary, not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor the exercise of judgment.[42]

GR No. 178330

2009-07-23

MARTIN T. SAGARBARRIA v. PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK

NACHURA, J.

It is settled that the proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex parte and summary in nature. It is a judicial proceeding brought for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or consent by any person adversely interested. It is a proceeding wherein relief is granted without an opportunity for the person against whom the relief is sought to be heard.[17] No notice is needed to be served upon persons interested in the subject property. Hence, there is no necessity of giving notice to the petitioner since he had already lost all his interests in the property when he failed to redeem the same.[18] Accordingly, the RTC may grant the petition in the absence of the mortgagor, in this case, the petitioner.

GR No. 183211

2009-06-05

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GOTESCO TYAN MING DEVELOPMENT

NACHURA, J.

In De Vera v. Agloro[17] this Court upheld the denial by the RTC of a motion for consolidation of a petition for issuance of a writ of possession with a civil action, as it would prejudice the right of one of the parties, viz.: It bears stressing that consolidation is aimed to obtain justice with the least expense and vexation to the litigants. The object of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression or abuse, prevent delays and save the litigants unnecessary acts and expense. Consolidation should be denied when prejudice would result to any of the parties or would cause complications, delay, prejudice, cut off, or restrict the rights of a party.

GR No. 167280

2008-04-30

METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. ELMOR V. BANCE AND ROSARIO J. BANCE

QUISUMBING, J.

First, no extrinsic fraud was employed by petitioner in not informing respondents of the institution of the writ of possession case. A petition for the issuance of the writ, under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is not an ordinary action filed in court, by which one party "sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or prevention or redress of a wrong." [26] It is in the nature of an ex parte motion which the court hears only one side. It is taken or granted at the instance and for the benefit of one party, and without notice to or consent by any party adversely affected. [27] Accordingly, upon the filing of a proper motion by the purchaser in a foreclosure sale, and the approval of the corresponding bond, the writ of possession issues as a matter of course and the trial court has no discretion on this matter. [28]

GR NO. 159882

2007-11-23

SPS. RUBEN AND VIOLETA SAGUAN v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

NACHURA, J.

On the other hand, after the lapse of the redemption period, a writ of possession may be issued in favor of the purchaser in a foreclosure sale as the mortgagor is now considered to have lost interest over the foreclosed property.[19] Consequently, the purchaser, who has a right to possession after the expiration of the redemption period, becomes the absolute owner of the property when no redemption is made.[20] In this regard, the bond is no longer needed. The purchaser can demand possession at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new TCT. After consolidation of title in the purchaser's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, the purchaser's right to possession ripens into the absolute right of a confirmed owner. At that point, the issuance of a writ of possession, upon proper application and proof of title, to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes merely a ministerial function.[21] Effectively, the court cannot exercise its discretion.

GR NO. 165963

2007-09-03

SPS. NORBERTO OLIVEROS AND ELVIRA OLIVEROS v. PRESIDING JUDGE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

After the one-year redemption period, the mortgagor loses all interest over the foreclosed property.[15] The purchaser, who has a right to possession that extends after the expiration of the redemption period, becomes the absolute owner of the property when no redemption is made.[16] In such a situation, the bond required under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is no longer needed. The possession of land becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as confirmed owner.[17] The purchaser can demand possession at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new TCT. After the consolidation of title in the purchaser's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right. Its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes merely a ministerial function.[18] As such, the court cannot exercise its discretion.

GR NO. 156542

2007-06-26

CANDELARIA Q. DAYOT v. SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

It bears emphasis that an ex-parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession is a non-litigious proceeding authorized in an extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage pursuant to Act 3135, as amended.[30] It is brought for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or consent by any person adversely interested.[31]

GR NO. 168088

2007-04-04

SAN FERNANDO RURAL BANK v. PAMPANGA OMNIBUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The purchaser may appeal the order to the CA if his petition is denied by the RTC. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the purchaser must be placed in possession of the property, such possession being predicated on the right of ownership.[70]

GR NO. 147902

2006-03-17

SPS. VICENTE YU AND DEMETRIA LEE-YU v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Furthermore, since the one-year period to redeem the foreclosed properties lapsed on October 1, 1999, title to the foreclosed properties had already been consolidated under the name of the respondent. As the owner of the properties, respondent is entitled to its possession as a matter of right.[40] The issuance of a writ of possession over the properties by the trial court is merely a ministerial function. As such, the trial court neither exercises its official discretion nor judgment.[41] Any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of possession.[42] Regardless of the pending suit for annulment of the certificate of sale, respondent is entitled to a writ of possession, without prejudice of course to the eventual outcome of said case.[43]

GR No. 144374

2005-11-11

ROMEO TESTON v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

A court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.[19] The obvious purpose of the rule allowing consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits to guard against oppression or abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court; in short the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties litigants.[20] Consolidation of actions is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and its action in consolidating will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion.[21]

	GR No. 162757 2013-12-11	UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. CHRISTOPHER LUMBO BERSAMIN, J.
It was of no consequence at all that UCPB made its ex parte application for the writ of possession the action (Special Proceedings No. 5884) when Civil Case No. 5920 (in which the respondents were seeking the annulment of the foreclosure and the stoppage of the consolidation of title, among other reliefs sought) was already pending in the RTC, for the settled jurisprudence is to the effect that the pendency of an action for the annulment of the mortgage or of the foreclosure sale does not constitute a legal ground to prevent the implementation of a writ of possession.[26]
	GR No. 173349 2011-02-09	SAMUEL U. LEE v. BANGKOK BANK PUBLIC COMPANY VELASCO JR., J.
Even as a general rule, "[t]he period of redemption is not tolled by the filing of a complaint or petition for annulment of the mortgage and the foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to the said mortgage,"[86] Bangkok Bank, however, filed its action for rescission way beyond the expiration of the said redemption period on July 20, 1999. After the expiration of the redemption period, Asiatrust as purchaser, therefore, became the absolute owner of the subject properties, and whose rights necessarily include the right to be in the legal possession of the properties.[87]
	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 court can neither halt nor hesitate to issue the writ of possession. It cannot exercise any discretion to determine whether or not to issue the writ, for the issuance of the writ to the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes a ministerial function.[41] Verily, a marked distinction exists between a discretionary act and a ministerial one. A purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary, not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor the exercise of judgment.[42]
	GR No. 178330 2009-07-23	MARTIN T. SAGARBARRIA v. PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK NACHURA, J.
It is settled that the proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex parte and summary in nature. It is a judicial proceeding brought for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or consent by any person adversely interested. It is a proceeding wherein relief is granted without an opportunity for the person against whom the relief is sought to be heard.[17] No notice is needed to be served upon persons interested in the subject property. Hence, there is no necessity of giving notice to the petitioner since he had already lost all his interests in the property when he failed to redeem the same.[18] Accordingly, the RTC may grant the petition in the absence of the mortgagor, in this case, the petitioner.
	GR No. 183211 2009-06-05	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GOTESCO TYAN MING DEVELOPMENT NACHURA, J.
In De Vera v. Agloro[17] this Court upheld the denial by the RTC of a motion for consolidation of a petition for issuance of a writ of possession with a civil action, as it would prejudice the right of one of the parties, viz.: It bears stressing that consolidation is aimed to obtain justice with the least expense and vexation to the litigants. The object of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression or abuse, prevent delays and save the litigants unnecessary acts and expense. Consolidation should be denied when prejudice would result to any of the parties or would cause complications, delay, prejudice, cut off, or restrict the rights of a party.
	GR No. 167280 2008-04-30	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. ELMOR V. BANCE AND ROSARIO J. BANCE QUISUMBING, J.
First, no extrinsic fraud was employed by petitioner in not informing respondents of the institution of the writ of possession case. A petition for the issuance of the writ, under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is not an ordinary action filed in court, by which one party "sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or prevention or redress of a wrong." [26] It is in the nature of an ex parte motion which the court hears only one side. It is taken or granted at the instance and for the benefit of one party, and without notice to or consent by any party adversely affected. [27] Accordingly, upon the filing of a proper motion by the purchaser in a foreclosure sale, and the approval of the corresponding bond, the writ of possession issues as a matter of course and the trial court has no discretion on this matter. [28]
	GR NO. 159882 2007-11-23	SPS. RUBEN AND VIOLETA SAGUAN v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS NACHURA, J.
On the other hand, after the lapse of the redemption period, a writ of possession may be issued in favor of the purchaser in a foreclosure sale as the mortgagor is now considered to have lost interest over the foreclosed property.[19] Consequently, the purchaser, who has a right to possession after the expiration of the redemption period, becomes the absolute owner of the property when no redemption is made.[20] In this regard, the bond is no longer needed. The purchaser can demand possession at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new TCT. After consolidation of title in the purchaser's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, the purchaser's right to possession ripens into the absolute right of a confirmed owner. At that point, the issuance of a writ of possession, upon proper application and proof of title, to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes merely a ministerial function.[21] Effectively, the court cannot exercise its discretion.
	GR NO. 165963 2007-09-03	SPS. NORBERTO OLIVEROS AND ELVIRA OLIVEROS v. PRESIDING JUDGE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
After the one-year redemption period, the mortgagor loses all interest over the foreclosed property.[15] The purchaser, who has a right to possession that extends after the expiration of the redemption period, becomes the absolute owner of the property when no redemption is made.[16] In such a situation, the bond required under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, is no longer needed. The possession of land becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as confirmed owner.[17] The purchaser can demand possession at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new TCT. After the consolidation of title in the purchaser's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right. Its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes merely a ministerial function.[18] As such, the court cannot exercise its discretion.
	GR NO. 156542 2007-06-26	CANDELARIA Q. DAYOT v. SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It bears emphasis that an ex-parte petition for issuance of a writ of possession is a non-litigious proceeding authorized in an extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage pursuant to Act 3135, as amended.[30] It is brought for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or consent by any person adversely interested.[31]
	GR NO. 168088 2007-04-04	SAN FERNANDO RURAL BANK v. PAMPANGA OMNIBUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The purchaser may appeal the order to the CA if his petition is denied by the RTC. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the purchaser must be placed in possession of the property, such possession being predicated on the right of ownership.[70]
	GR NO. 147902 2006-03-17	SPS. VICENTE YU AND DEMETRIA LEE-YU v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Furthermore, since the one-year period to redeem the foreclosed properties lapsed on October 1, 1999, title to the foreclosed properties had already been consolidated under the name of the respondent. As the owner of the properties, respondent is entitled to its possession as a matter of right.[40] The issuance of a writ of possession over the properties by the trial court is merely a ministerial function. As such, the trial court neither exercises its official discretion nor judgment.[41] Any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of possession.[42] Regardless of the pending suit for annulment of the certificate of sale, respondent is entitled to a writ of possession, without prejudice of course to the eventual outcome of said case.[43]
	GR No. 144374 2005-11-11	ROMEO TESTON v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.[19] The obvious purpose of the rule allowing consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits to guard against oppression or abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court; in short the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties litigants.[20] Consolidation of actions is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and its action in consolidating will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion.[21]

SPS. SALVADOR F. DE VERA AND FELIZA V. DE VERA v. GUILLERMO P. AGLORO