Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GREGORIO ESPINOZA v. UNITED OVERSEAS BANK PHILS.

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 171172 2015-11-09	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. JOHNSON AND EVELYN CO AND JUPITER REAL ESTATE VENTURES JARDELEZA, J.
In Philippine Savings Bank, we upheld the consolidation of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with an ordinary civil action in order to achieve a more expeditious resolution of the cases. However, in the more recent case of Espinoza v. United Overseas Bank Phils.,[74] we held that the consolidation of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with the proceedings for nullification of foreclosure would be highly improper when title to the litigated property had already been consolidated in the name of the mortgagee-purchaser, as in the case of BPI. "Otherwise, not only will the very purpose of consolidation (which is to avoid unnecessary delay) be defeated but the procedural matter of consolidation will also adversely affect the substantive right of possession as an incident of ownership."[75]
	GR No. 187973 2014-01-20	LZK HOLDINGS v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK REYES, J.
No hearing is required prior to the issuance of a writ of possession. This is clear from the following disquisitions in Espinoza v. United Overseas Bank Phils.[24] which reiterates the settled rules on writs of possession, to wit: The proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex parte and summary in nature. It is a judicial proceeding brought for the benefit of one party only and without notice by the court to any person adverse of interest. It is a proceeding wherein relief is granted without giving the person against whom the relief is sought an opportunity to be heard.
	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. 172504 2013-07-31	DONNA C. NAGTALON v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK BRION, J.
The correctness of the issuance of the writ in the second scenario is strengthened by the fact that after the consolidation of ownership and issuance of titles to the purchaser, the latter's right to possession not only finds support in Section 7 of Act 3135, but also on its right to possession as an incident of ownership.[22] The Court, in Espinoza v. United Overseas Bank Philippines,[23] noted that the basis of the right to possession is the purchaser's ownership of the property.
	GR No. 141809 2013-04-08	JOSEFINA F. INGLES v. ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA PEREZ, J.
As a rule, a petition for the issuance of a writ possession may not be consolidated with any other ordinary action. It is well-settled that a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is ex-parte, summary and non-litigious by nature; which nature would be rendered nugatory if such petition was to be consolidated with any other ordinary civil action.[146]
	GR No. 193065 2012-02-27	DEUTSCHE BANK AG v. CA MENDOZA, J.
In the recent case of Espinoza v. United Overseas Bank Phils.,[34] the Court, in the same manner ruled against the consolidation of the proceedings for the issuance of a writ of possession with that for the declaration of nullity of a foreclosure sale on the ground that it would run counter to the purpose of consolidation: In this case, title to the litigated property had already been consolidated in the name of respondent, making the issuance of a writ of possession a matter of right. Consequently, the consolidation of the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with the proceedings for nullification of foreclosure would be highly improper. Otherwise, not only will the very purpose of consolidation (which is to avoid unnecessary delay) be defeated but the procedural matter of consolidation will also adversely affect the substantive right of possession as an incident of ownership.[35]