Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. SPS. TOBIAS L. LOZADA AND ERLINA P. LOZADA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 191540 2015-01-21	SPS. JOSE O. GATUSLAO v. LEO RAY V. YANSON DEL CASTILLO, J.
The RTC granted the issuance of the writ of possession in an Order[16] dated December 8, 2009. It cited the Court's pronouncement in China Banking Corporation v. Lozada,[17] viz: The Court recognizes the rights acquired by the purchaser of the foreclosed property at the public auction sale upon the consolidation of his title when no timely redemption of the property was made, x x x.
	GR No. 179267 2013-06-25	JESUS C. GARCIA v. GARCIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
A perusal of the deliberations of Congress on Senate Bill No. 2723,[61] which became R.A. 9262, reveals that while the sponsor, Senator Luisa Pimentel-Ejercito (better known as Senator Loi Estrada), had originally proposed what she called a "synthesized measure"[62] an amalgamation of two measures, namely, the "Anti-Domestic Violence Act" and the "Anti- Abuse of Women in Intimate Relationships Act"[63] providing protection to "all family members, leaving no one in isolation" but at the same time giving special attention to women as the "usual victims" of violence and abuse,[64] nonetheless, it was eventually agreed that men be denied protection under the same measure. We quote pertinent portions of the deliberations: Wednesday, December 10, 2003
	GR No. 199747 2013-04-03	TEODORO DARCEN v. V. R. GONZALES CREDIT ENTERPRISES REYES, J.
But in China Banking Corporation v. Lozada,[40] the Supreme Court clarified that it is not enough that the property be possessed by a third party, but the same must also held by the third party adversely to the debtor/mortgagor: Where a parcel levied upon on execution is occupied by a party other than a judgment debtor, the procedure is for the court to order a hearing to determine the nature of said adverse possession. Similarly, in an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property, when the foreclosed property is in the possession of a third party holding the same adversely to the defaulting debtor/mortgagor, the issuance by the RTC of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser of the said real property ceases to be ministerial and may no longer be done ex parte. For the exception to apply, however, the property need not only be possessed by a third party, but also held by the third party adversely to the debtor/mortgagor.[41] (Citation omitted and emphasis ours)
	GR No. 200667 2013-03-11	RURAL BANK OF STA. BARBARA v. GERRY CENTENO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In China Banking Corporation v. Lozada,[19] the Court held that the phrase "a third party who is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor" contemplates a situation in which a third party holds the property by adverse title or right, such as that of a co-owner, tenant or usufructuary. The co-owner, agricultural tenant, and usufructuary possess the property in their own right, and they are not merely the successor or transferee of the right of possession of another co-owner or the owner of the property.[20] Notably, the property should not only be possessed by a third party, but also held by the third party adversely to the judgment obligor.[21]
	GR No. 192377 2012-07-25	CESAR V. MADRIAGA v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION REYES, J.
The rule, however, admits of an exception. Thus, it is specifically provided in Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court[33] that the possession of the extrajudicially foreclosed property shall be withheld from the purchaser if a third-party is actually holding the same adversely to the mortgagor/debtor.[34]
	GR Nos. 184379-80 2012-04-24	RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA v. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO SERENO, J.
While overseas, Lozada asked Sec. Atienza whether the former could be allowed to go back to the Philippines.[11] Upon the approval of Sec. Atienza, Lozada informed his family that he was returning from Hong Kong on 5 February 2008 on board Cathay Pacific Flight No. 919, bound to arrive in Manila at 4:40 p.m. on the same day.[12]
	GR No. 176019 2011-01-12	BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. GOLDEN POWER DIESEL SALES CENTER CARPIO, J.
This procedure may also be availed of by the purchaser seeking possession of the foreclosed property bought at the public auction sale after the redemption period has expired without redemption having been made.[16]
	GR No. 177881 2010-10-13	EMMANUEL C. VILLANUEVA v. CHERDAN LENDING INVESTORS CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
It is settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed within one year after the registration of the sale. As such, he is entitled to the possession of the property and can demand that he be placed in possession at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new TCT.[23] Time and again, we have held that it is ministerial upon the court to issue a writ of possession after the foreclosure sale and during the period of redemption. Upon the filing of an ex parte motion and the approval of the corresponding bond, the court issues the order for a writ of possession. 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 TCT in the name of the purchaser.[24]
	GR No. 171386 2009-07-17	GLORIA R. MOTOS v. REAL BANK QUISUMBING, J.
SEC. 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the Court of First Instance of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in form of an ex parte motion in the registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is registered, or in special proceedings in the case of property registered under the Mortgage Law or under section one hundred and ninety-four of the Administrative Code, or any other real property encumbered with a mortgage duly registered in the office of any register of deeds in accordance with any existing law, and in each case the clerk of court shall, upon the filing of such petition, collect the fees specified in paragraph eleven of section one hundred and fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six as amended by Act Numbered Twenty-eight hundred and sixty-six, and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order immediately. (Emphasis supplied.)[24]