Facts:

The case, Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and Celestina S. Pahimutang, arose from a dispute regarding the issuance of a writ of possession following an extrajudicial foreclosure of a mortgage. The respondent, Celestina S. Pahimutang, together with her husband Gerardo, purchased a house and lot located at No. 15, Istanbul Street, BF Homes III, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. S-15041 from Pilar Development Corporation for the total price of P139,800.00. They obtained financial assistance from the petitioner, Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, which was secured by a real estate mortgage over the property. However, after a certain period, the couple defaulted on their monthly amortizations. Consequently, on June 30, 1982, the petitioner initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. The property was auctioned on August 5, 1982, with the bank emerging as the highest bidder, and the certificate of sale was register

...

Facts:

Parties and Property

• BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK is the petitioner, while spouses Gerardo and Celestina Pahimutang are the respondents.
• The property in question is a house and lot located at No. 15, Istanbul Street, BF Homes III, originally purchased by the spouses and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. S-15041.
• The purchase price was P139,800.00, with an outstanding balance of P125,700.00 financed by the bank through a loan contract secured by a real estate mortgage.

Extrajudicial Foreclosure and Auction Sale

• Due to the spouses’ failure to pay the monthly loan amortizations, the petitioner filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure on June 30, 1982, with the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal.
• At a public auction sale held on August 5, 1982, the property was awarded to the petitioner as the highest bidder.
• The certificate of sale was subsequently registered on September 21, 1982, evidencing the petitioner’s acquisition.

Petition for Writ of Possession and Subsequent Actions

• On January 21, 1983, the petitioner filed a verified petition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal (later assigned to the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXLI at Makati) for the issuance of a writ of possession pursuant to Section 7 of Act No. 3135.
• The spouses-mortgagors opposed the petition, asserting:
• They had paid more than the installments due as of the foreclosure.
• The foreclosure was improper.
• They were not properly notified of the foreclosure proceedings.
• On October 12, 1983, the trial court issued an order directing the issuance of the writ of possession while informing the spouses that their grievances could be addressed in a separate action.
• Concurrently, on October 10, 1983, the Register of Deeds of Pasay City issued a new TCT No. 73492 in the name of the petitioner.
• Despite the spouses’ filing of a civil action for the “Cancellation and Annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure of Mortgage, Damages and Preliminary Injunction” (Civil Case No. 5566) before the Regional Trial Court at Makati, the writ of possession was ordered on December 7, 1983.
• The spouses then petitioned the Intermediate Appellate Court for certiorari and prohibition, leading to a decision on July 12, 1984, which set aside the writ of possession on the ground that possession should remain with the owner during the redemption period.

Timeline Summary and Key Developments

• Extrajudicial foreclosure petition filed: June 30, 1982.
• Auction sale and award: August 5, 1982.
• Certificate of sale registered: September 21, 1982.
• Verified petition for writ of possession filed: January 21, 1983.
• Order directing issuance of writ: October 12, 1983.
• New title issued: October 10, 1983.
• Writ of possession formally ordered: December 7, 1983.
• Certiorari and prohibition petition granted by the Intermediate Appellate Court: July 12, 1984.

Issue:

Timing and Validity of Writ of Possession

• Whether the writ of possession was properly issued considering the statutory redemption period.
• Whether the petitioner's application for the writ was in compliance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135.

Rights of the Owner Versus the Purchaser

• Whether the spouses-mortgagors retained the right to remain in possession during the redemption period.
• Whether the trial court erred in ordering the ejectment of the spouses from the property before the expiration of the redemption period.

Procedural and Substantive Considerations in Extrajudicial Foreclosure

• Whether the extrajudicial foreclosure, registration of the new TCT, and issuance of the writ of possession were executed in accordance with the law.
• The impact of the separate civil action for cancellation and annulment of the foreclosure on the issuance of the writ.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)