Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. FERNANDO AND ANGELINA EDRALIN v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 206599 2014-09-29	680 HOME APPLIANCES v. CA BRION, J.
However, upon the lapse of the redemption period without the debtor exercising his right of redemption and the purchaser consolidates his title, it becomes unnecessary to require the purchaser to assume actual possession thereof before the debtor may contest it. Possession of the land becomes an absolute right of the purchaser, as this is merely an incident of his ownership. In fact, the issuance of the writ of possession at this point becomes ministerial for the court.[20] The debtor contesting the purchaser's possession may no longer avail of the remedy under Section 8 of Act No. 3135, but should pursue a separate action e.g., action for recovery of ownership, for annulment of mortgage and/or annulment of foreclosure. FSAMI's consolidation of ownership therefore makes the remedy under Section 8 of Act No. 3135 unavailable for 680 Home. 680 Home cannot assail the writ of possession by filing a petition in LRC No. M-5444.
	GR No. 199420 2014-08-27	PHILNICO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. PRIVATIZATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Pactum commissorium is among the contractual stipulations that are deemed contrary to law. It is defined as "a stipulation empowering the creditor to appropriate the thing given as guaranty for the fulfillment of the obligation in the event the obligor fails to live up to his undertakings, without further formality, such as foreclosure proceedings, and a public sale."[33] It is explicitly prohibited under Article 2088 of the Civil Code which provides: ART. 2088. The creditor cannot appropriate the things given by way of pledge or mortgage, or dispose of them. Any stipulation to the contrary is null and void.
	GR No. 175768 2013-12-11	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. EDGARDO M. CRISTOBAL AND MA. TERESITA S. CRISTOBAL SERENO, C.J.
Jurisprudence articulates that "[t]he purchaser can demand possession at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title. After the consolidation of title in the buyer's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right."[28] In fact, in Sps. Edralin v. Philippine Veterans Bank,[29] we have held that: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 becomes merely a ministerial function. Effectively, the court cannot exercise its discretion.
	GR No. 179691 2013-12-04	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. MARY ANN O. YEUNG BRION, J.
When the redemption period has expired and title over the property has been consolidated in the purchaser's name, a writ of possession can be demanded as a matter of right. The writ of possession shall be issued 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. As explained in Edralin v. Philippine Veterans Bank,[25] the duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession in these instances is also ministerial, and the court may not exercise discretion or judgment: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 becomes merely a ministerial function. Effectively, the court cannot exercise its discretion.[26]
	GR No. 172504 2013-07-31	DONNA C. NAGTALON v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK BRION, J.
Moreover, if the court has the ministerial power to issue a writ of possession even during the redemption period, upon proper motion and posting of the required bond, as clearly provided by Section 7 of Act 3135, then with more reason should the court issue the writ of possession after the expiration of the redemption period, as the purchaser has already acquired an absolute right to possession on the basis of his ownership of the property.[24] The right to possess a property follows ownership.[25]
	GR No. 174240 2013-03-20	SPS. LEHNER v. MENELIA CHUA PERALTA, J.
Pactum commissorium is a stipulation empowering the creditor to appropriate the thing given as guaranty for the fulfillment of the obligation in the event the obligor fails to live up to his undertakings, without further formality, such as foreclosure proceedings, and a public sale.[32]
	GR No. 178288 2012-08-15	SPS. CHARLIE FORTALEZA AND OFELIA FORTALEZA v. SPS. RAUL LAPITAN AND RONA LAPITAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Under the provision cited above, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period. Notably, in this case, the one-year period for the spouses Fortaleza to redeem the mortgaged property had already lapsed. Furthermore, ownership of the subject property had already been consolidated and a new certificate of title had been issued under the name of the spouses Lapitan. Hence, as the new registered owners of the subject property, they are even more entitled to its possession and have the unmistakable right to file an ex parte motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. As aptly explained in Edralin v. Philippine Veterans Bank,[42] 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, thus: 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. x x x 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 becomes merely a ministerial function. Effectively, the court cannot exercise its discretion. (Emphasis in the original.)