Scribd
Upload
65 views2 pages

Foreclosure Writ of Possession Dispute

- Spouses Regondola and Zabat obtained a loan secured by a mortgage on property. They defaulted and the property was foreclosed and sold at auction to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). - Petitioners Rafael Barican and Araceli Alejo claim they purchased the property from the original owners and filed a case against DBP claiming ownership. - The Court of Appeals ruled the lower court had no discretion and must issue a writ of possession to DBP as the purchaser. However, the Supreme Court ruled that where there is a pending case questioning ownership, the court's obligation is not purely ministerial and it may stay issuance of the writ.

Uploaded by

Karyl Ann Aquino-Caluya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
65 views2 pages

Foreclosure Writ of Possession Dispute

- Spouses Regondola and Zabat obtained a loan secured by a mortgage on property. They defaulted and the property was foreclosed and sold at auction to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). - Petitioners Rafael Barican and Araceli Alejo claim they purchased the property from the original owners and filed a case against DBP claiming ownership. - The Court of Appeals ruled the lower court had no discretion and must issue a writ of possession to DBP as the purchaser. However, the Supreme Court ruled that where there is a pending case questioning ownership, the court's obligation is not purely ministerial and it may stay issuance of the writ.

Uploaded by

Karyl Ann Aquino-Caluya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

6. G.R. No.

79906 June 20, 1988


RAFAEL BARICAN and ARACELI ALEJO, petitioners,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, and DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

FACTS:

 Spouses Regondola and Zabat obtained a loan with respondent bank covered by a real
estate mortgage as a security. Eventually, the spouses failed to pay their obligation that
resulted to the extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgaged by the respondent bank. The
mortgaged property was then sold at public auction wherein in the respondent bank
was held as the highest bidder.
 Spouses Regondola and Zabat failed to redeem their property within one year, hence the
title to the property was consolidated in favor of the respondent bank.
 On 1984, the respondent bank sold the property to Nicanor Reyes. On October 5, 1985,
the bank filed with the lower court a petition for issuance of a writ of possession, which
was granted.
 Before said writ of possession could be implemented, spouses petitioner filed a petition
to stay its implementation, alleging that they are the owner of the subject property by
virtue of a deed of sale with assumption of mortgaged they executed with the Spouses
Regondola and Zabat; and that they actually filed a complaint (Civil Case C-11232) for
the declaration of ownership over the foreclosed property, which the respondent bank
as aware since they are made defendant thereto.
 The lower court granted the petition to stay implementation; aggrieved, the respondent
bank appealed before the Court of Appeals which in turn revers the appealed order of
the lower court, holding that the lower court was left with no discretion but to issue a
writ of possession because the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of a purchaser in
a foreclosure sale of a mortgaged property is a ministerial act of the court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the issuance a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in a foreclosure of
mortgage is ministerial.

RULING:
No. The well-settled rule is that the purchaser in a foreclosure sale of a mortgaged
property is entitled to a writ of possession and that upon an ex-parte petition of the purchaser,
it is ministerial upon the court to issue such writ of possession in favor of the purchase.
However, the rule is not an unqualified one.

In the instant case, the petition for the issuance of an alias writ of possession was set for
hearing. During the hearing, the lower court discovered certain facts, among them: In Civil Case
No. C-11232, the petitioner-spouses claim ownership of the foreclosed property against the
respondent bank and Nicanor Reyes to whom the former sold the property by negotiated sale;
the complaint alleged that the DBP knew the assumption of mortgage between the mortgagors
and the petitioner-spouses and the latter have paid to the respondent bank certain amounts to
update the loan balances of the mortgagors and transfer and restructuring fees which
payments are duly receipted; the petitioner-spouses were already in possession of the property
since September 28, 1979 and long before the respondent bank sold the same property to
respondent Nicanor Reyes on October 28, 1984; and the respondent bank never took physical
possession of the property.

Under these circumstances, the obligation of a court to issue a writ of possession in


favor of the purchaser in a foreclosure of mortgage case ceases to be ministerial.

You might also like