This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-10 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We explained in Philippine National Bank v. Austria[28] that the foregoing doctrinal pronouncements are not without support in substantive law, to wit: x x x. Notably, the Civil Code protects the actual possessor of a property, to wit: | |||||
|
2008-09-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Under the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of the judgment obligor to the property as of the time of the levy. The possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last redemptioner by the same officer unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment obligor. Ordinarily, a purchaser of property in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the property. Thus, whenever the purchaser prays for a writ of possession, the trial court has to issue it as a matter of course.[9] However, the obligation of the trial court to issue a writ of possession ceases to be ministerial once it appears that there is a third party in possession of the property claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor.[10] Where such third party exists, the trial court should conduct a hearing to determine the nature of his adverse possession.[11] | |||||