Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PRIME NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	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. 176518 2010-03-02	PARENTS-TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF ST. MATHEW CHRISTIAN ACADEMY v. METROPOLITAN BANK DEL CASTILLO, J.
As a rule, it is ministerial upon the court to issue a writ of possession after the foreclosure sale and during the period of redemption.[8] Section 7 of Act No. 3135 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 registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is registered, or in special proceedings in the case of property registered under the Mortgage Law" with the Regional Trial Court of the province or place where the real property or any part thereof is situated, in the case of mortgages duly registered with the Registry of Deeds. Upon filing of such motion and the approval of the corresponding bond, the law also directs in express terms the said court to issue the order for a writ of possession.[9]
	GR No. 168061 2009-10-12	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. TEOFILO P. ICOT CARPIO, J.
In the recent case of Development Bank of the Philippines v. Prime Neighborhood Association,[21] we reiterated our previous ruling in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals[22] 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." We further held, thus: Under [Article 433 of the Civil Code],[23] 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.