This case has been cited 2 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: | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is settled that the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in a public auction is a ministerial act. After the consolidation of title in the buyer's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, entitlement to the writ of possession becomes a matter of right.[51] To be sure, regardless of whether or not there is a pending action for nullification of the sale at public auction, the purchaser is entitled to a writ of possession without prejudice to the outcome of such action.[52] Undeniably, Alfredo failed to redeem the property within the redemption period and, thereafter, ownership was consolidated in favor of the Bank and a new certificate of title, TCT No. 221703, was issued in its name. It was, therefore, a purely ministerial duty for the trial court to issue a writ of possession in favor of the Bank and issue the Order granting the motion for designation of another sheriff to serve the writ, which is merely an order enforcing the writ of possession. | |||||