In Re: Ex Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession, Philippine National Bank vs. Alma T. Placencia Fontanoza,
G.R. No. 213673
Facts:
1. Spouses Salvador and Alma Fontanoza obtained a loan from the Ozamiz Branch of the Philippine National Bank. To secure the loan, they mortgaged a parcel of land.
2. Since the Fontanozas failed to pay, PNB foreclosed the property.
3. As the sole bidder in the public auction, PNB acquired the lot.
4. PNB registered the sale. However, the Fontanozas failed to redeem the property.
5. More than nine years later, PNB filed an exparte petition for issuance of writ of possession before the RTC.
6. The RTC granted PNB's petition for the issuance of a writ of possession.
7. More than two months after the RTC's Resolution became final and executory, Alma filed an opposition with urgent motion to recall writ of possession.
8. She averred that she also instituted a suit against PNB before the trial court which was docketed as Civil Case No. 2011-20-458. Likewise, she had a contract with PNB for the repurchase of the property, and that she had already paid the agreed down payment, which she claimed as earnest money. In addition, she was not notified of PNB's petition for the issuance of a writ of possession
Issue:
Whether or not the Alma can recall the writ of possession.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court held that "once title to the property has been consolidated in the buyer's name upon failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property within the one-year redemption period, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right belonging to the buyer. Consequently, the buyer can demand possession of the property at any time. Its right of possession has then ripened into the right of a confirmed absolute owner and the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial function that does not admit of the exercise of the court's discretion. The court, acting on an application for its issuance, should issue the writ as a matter of course and without any delay.
Alma failed to redeem the property during the one-year redemption period. Thus, she ceased to have rights over the subject lot either as a mortgagor or redemptioner.
However, there are exceptions to the rule that the trial court's duty to issue the writ of possession in favor of the purchaser is ministerial. "In Nagtalon v. United Coconut Planters Bank, the Court enumerated the following jurisprudential exceptions:
(a) gross inadequacy of the purchase price;
(b) third party claiming right adverse to the mortgagor/debtor, and;
(c) failure to pay the surplus proceeds of the sale to the mortgagor.
The first and third exceptions cannot apply to this case since there are no allegations referring to either the purchase price or surplus proceeds of the sale, if any.
A third party should hold possession of the subject property adversely to the judgment debtor or mortgagor. Although Alma is supposedly in possession of the property, she cannot be considered as a third party who held the property adversely to the judgment debtor or mortgagor simply because she herself was the mortgagor who failed to redeem the lot. This is notwithstanding PNB's delay, for reasons only known to it, in filing a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession. Alma posits that since she filed a case "for the declaration of the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale as null and void or for repurchase," the RTC erroneously issued the writ of possession in PNB's favor. Yet, jurisprudence teaches that "not even any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure is a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of execution/writ of possession." Hence, she cannot insist on the recall of the writ of possession solely because she filed a separate case which questioned the foreclosure and advanced her claim of repurchase.
In the case at bench, the aforementioned exceptions are not present.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment