This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-09-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is thus clear that during and after the period of redemption, the purchaser at a foreclosure sale is entitled as of right to a writ of possession. Thus, in Kho v. Court of Appeals,[8] we ruled that an injunction to prohibit the issuance of a writ of possession is utterly out of place. And once the writ of possession has been issued, the court has no alternative but to enforce the said writ without delay.[9] Verily, we find that the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in enjoining the implementation of the writ of possession issued in respondent's favor. | |||||
|
2005-07-08 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| The law[17] and jurisprudence[18] are clear that in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, an order for a writ of possession issues as a matter of course, upon proper motion, after the expiration of the redemption period without the mortgagor exercising the right of redemption, or even during the redemption period provided a bond is posted to indemnify the debtor in case the foreclosure sale is shown to have been conducted without complying with the requirements of the law or without the debtor violating the mortgage contract.[19] The rationale for the ministerial issuance of a writ of possession is to put the foreclosure buyer in possession of the property sold without delay, since the right to possession is founded on ownership of the property.[20] | |||||