This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Further, respondent may rightfully take possession of the subject properties through a writ of possession, even if he was not the actual buyer thereof at the public auction sale, in consonance with our ruling in Ermitaño v. Paglas.[48] In the said case, therein respondent was petitioner's lessee in a residential property owned by the latter. During the lifetime of the lease, respondent learned that petitioner mortgaged the subject property in favor of Charlie Yap (Yap) who eventually foreclosed the same. Yap was the purchaser thereof in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale. Respondent ultimately bought the property from Yap. However, it was stipulated in the deed of sale that the property was still subject to petitioner's right of redemption. Subsequently and despite written demands to pay the amounts corresponding to her monthly rental of the subject property, respondent did not anymore pay rents. Meanwhile, petitioner's period to redeem the foreclosed property expired on February 23, 2001. Several months after, petitioner filed a case for unlawful detainer against respondent. When the case reached this Court, it ruled that therein respondent's basis for denying petitioner's claim for rent was insufficient as the latter, during the period for which payment of rent was being demanded, was still the owner of the foreclosed property. This is because at that time, the period of redemption has not yet expired. Thus, petitioner was still entitled to the physical possession thereof subject, however, to the purchaser's right to petition the court to give him possession and to file a bond pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended. However, after the expiration of the redemption period without redemption having been made by petitioner, respondent became the owner thereof and consolidation of title becomes a right. Being already then the owner, respondent became entitled to possession. Consequently, petitioner's ejectment suit was held to have been rendered moot by the expiration of the period of redemption without petitioner redeeming the properties. This is considering that petitioner already lost his possessory right over the property after the expiration of the said period. | |||||