This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-11-09 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Under Section 7[52] of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period. Upon the purchaser's filing of an ex parte petition and posting of the appropriate bond, the RTC shall, as a matter of course, order the issuance of the writ of possession in the purchaser's favor. But equally well settled is the rule that a writ of possession will issue 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.[53] | |||||
|
2013-07-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Respondent's Petition for Certiorari filed before the CA was not the proper remedy against the assailed Order of the RTC. Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a special civil action for certiorari could only be availed of when a tribunal "acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of [its] judgment as to be said to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction"[26] or when it acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and if there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[27] | |||||
|
2012-10-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In Equitable PCI Bank, Inc v. DNG Realty and Development Corporation,[40] the Court upheld the validity of the writ of possession procured by the creditor despite the subsequent issuance of a stay order in the rehabilitation proceedings instituted by the debtor. In said case, Equitable PCI Bank (Equitable) foreclosed on 30 June 2003 the mortgage executed in its favor by DNG Realty and Development Corporation (DNG) and was declared the highest bidder at the 4 September 2003 public auction of the property. On 21 October 2003, DNG also instituted a petition for corporate rehabilitation which resulted in the issuance of a Stay Order on 27 October 2003. Having caused the recording of the Certificate of Sale on 3 December 2003, on the other hand, Equitable executed an affidavit of consolidation of its ownership which served as basis for the issuance of a new title in its favor on 10 December 2003. Equitable subsequently filed an action for the issuance of a writ of possession on 17 March 2004 which was eventually granted on 6 September 2004. In affirming the validity of the certificate of sale, certificate of title and writ of possession issued in favor of Equitable, the Court ruled as follows: In RCBC, we upheld the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the mortgage properties of BF Homes wherein RCBC emerged as the highest bidder as it was done before the appointment of the management committee. Noteworthy to mention was the fact that the issuance of the certificate of sale in RCBC's favor, the consolidation of title, and the issuance of the new titles in RCBC's name had also been upheld notwithstanding that the same were all done after the management committee had already been appointed and there was already a suspension of claims. Thus, applying RCBC v. IAC in this case, since the foreclosure of respondent DNG's mortgage and the issuance of the certificate of sale in petitioner EPCIB's favor were done prior to the appointment of a Rehabilitation Receiver and the Stay Order, all the actions taken with respect to the foreclosed mortgage property which were subsequent to the issuance of the Stay Order were not affected by the Stay Order. Thus, after the redemption period expired without respondent redeeming the foreclosed property, petitioner becomes the absolute owner of the property and it was within its right to ask for the consolidation of title and the issuance of new title in its name as a consequence of ownership; thus, it is entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the property. (Italics supplied) | |||||
|
2012-04-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A special civil action for certiorari could be availed of only if a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[28] It has been repeatedly held in a number of cases[29] that the remedy of a party from the trial court's order granting the issuance of a writ of possession is to file a petition to set aside the sale and cancel the writ of possession, and the aggrieved party may then appeal from the order denying or granting said petition.[30] When a writ of possession had already been issued as in this case,[31] the proper remedy is an appeal and not a petition for certiorari.[32] To be sure, the trial court's order granting the writ of possession is final.[33] The soundness of the order granting the writ of possession is a matter of judgment, with respect to which the remedy of the party aggrieved is ordinary appeal.[34] As respondent availed of the wrong remedy, the appellate court erred in not dismissing outright the petition for certiorari. | |||||