This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The rule is likewise settled that the proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex-parte and summary in nature.[31] As one brought for the benefit of one party only and without notice by the court to any person adverse of interest, it is a judicial proceeding wherein relief is granted without giving the person against whom the relief is sought an opportunity to be heard.[32] The issuance of the writ of possession is, in turn, a ministerial function in the exercise of which trial courts are not granted any discretion.[33] Since the judge to whom the application for writ of possession is filed need not look into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure,[34] it has been ruled that the ministerial duty of the trial court does not become discretionary upon the filing of a complaint questioning the mortgage.[35] Corollarily, any question regarding the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and the resulting cancellation of the writ may, likewise, be determined in a subsequent proceeding as outlined in Section 8[36] of Act No. 3135.[37] | |||||
|
2013-01-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Thus, it is clear from the abovequoted provision of law that, as a consequence of the inchoate character of the purchaser's right during the redemption period, Act. No. 3135, as amended, allows the purchaser at the foreclosure sale to take possession of the property only upon the filing of a bond, in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve (12) months, to indemnify the mortgagor in case it be shown that the sale was made in violation of the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of the law. In Cua Lai Chu v. Laqui,[22] this Court reiterated the rule earlier pronounced in Navarra v. Court of Appeals[23] that the purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale has a right to the possession of the property even during the one-year redemption period provided the purchaser files an indemnity bond. That bond, nonetheless, is not required after the purchaser has consolidated his title to the property following the mortgagor's failure to exercise his right of redemption for in such a case, the former has become the absolute owner thereof.[24] | |||||