Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

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

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-11-2265 2011-09-21	ATTY. EMMANUEL R. ANDAMO v. JUDGE EDWIN G. LARIDA MENDOZA, J.
The ministerial character of judicial duty to issue writs of possession in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is explained in the case of Saguan v. Philippine Bank of Communications. [32] Thus: A writ of possession is an order enforcing a judgment to allow a person's recovery of possession of real or personal property. An instance when a writ of possession may issue is under Act No. 3135, as amended by act No. 4118, on extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage. Sections 6 and 7 provide, to wit:
	GR No. 168523 2011-03-09	SPS. FERNANDO AND ANGELINA EDRALIN v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK DEL CASTILLO, J.
Therefore, the issuance by the RTC of a writ of possession in favor of the respondent in this case is proper. We have consistently held that the duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession in such instances is ministerial, and the court may not exercise discretion or judgment x x x[36]
	GR No. 170906 2009-11-27	METROPOLITAN BANK v. EDGARDO C. SANTOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
In the subsequent case of Saguan v. Philippine Bank of Communications,[28] however, we clarified that the exception made in Sulit does not apply when the period to redeem has already expired or when ownership over the property has already been consolidated in favor of the mortgagee-purchaser. In other words, even if the mortgagee-purchaser fails to return the surplus, a writ of possession must still be issued. In the instant case, the period to redeem has already lapsed. Thus, following the ruling in Saguan, the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the petitioner is in order.
	GR No. 178330 2009-07-23	MARTIN T. SAGARBARRIA v. PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK NACHURA, J.
Within the one-year redemption period, a purchaser in a foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession by filing a petition in the form of an ex parte motion under oath for that purpose. Upon the filing of such motion with the RTC having jurisdiction over the subject property 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.[15]
	GR No. 157660 2008-08-29	ELIGIO P. MALLARI AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Again, in Saguan v. Philippine Bank of Communications,[14] the Court reiterated that:x x x 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. 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. Effectively, the court cannot exercise its discretion.