Facts:

The case involves BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (petitioner) and Golden Power Diesel Sales Center, Inc. and Renato C. Tan (respondents). On October 26, 1994, CEDEC Transport, Inc. (CEDEC) mortgaged two parcels of land in Malibay, Pasay City, to BPI Family to secure a loan of P6,570,000. This mortgage was duly annotated on the titles of the properties. Subsequently, CEDEC obtained additional loans from BPI Family, further mortgaging the same properties. Despite these loans, CEDEC defaulted on its obligations. On October 12, 1998, BPI Family filed a verified petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. The properties were sold at public auction on December 10, 1998, with BPI Family as the highest bidder, acquiring the properties for P13,793,705.31. The titles were consolidated in BPI Family's name after the one-year redemption period expired on May 15, 1999.

Despite several demand letters, CEDEC refused to vacate the properties. On January 31, 2002, BPI Family ...

Facts:

Mortgage and Additional Loans

• On October 26, 1994, CEDEC Transport, Inc. (CEDEC) mortgaged two parcels of land (TCT Nos. 134327 and 134328 in Malibay, Pasay City) along with all improvements thereon in favor of BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (BPI Family) to secure a loan of P6,570,000.
• On the same day, the mortgage was duly annotated on the titles under Entry No. 94-2878.
• CEDEC obtained additional loans from BPI Family on April 5 and November 27, 1995, amounting to P2,160,000 and P1,140,000 respectively, and mortgaged the same properties. These additional mortgages were recorded under Entry Nos. 95-6861 and 95-11041.

Extrajudicial Foreclosure and Title Consolidation

• Due to default by CEDEC despite several demand letters, BPI Family initiated extrajudicial foreclosure by filing a verified petition on October 12, 1998, under Act No. 3135.
• The properties were sold at public auction on December 10, 1998, with BPI Family emerging as the highest bidder at P13,793,705.31.
• The Certificate of Sheriff’s Sale was annotated on the titles on February 24, 1999, and after the expiration of a one-year redemption period on May 15, 1999, the titles were consolidated in the name of BPI Family.
• New titles (TCT Nos. 142935 and 142936) were issued to BPI Family on September 13, 2000.

Possession Dispute and Lower Court Proceedings

• Despite consolidation of title, CEDEC refused to vacate the properties, prompting BPI Family to file an Ex-Parte Petition for Writ of Possession on January 31, 2002, at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City.
• The RTC granted the petition on June 27, 2002, and issued the Writ of Possession on July 12, 2002.
• Respondents, Golden Power Diesel Sales Center, Inc. and Renato C. Tan, later filed a Motion to Hold Implementation of the writ on July 29, 2002, asserting that they were in possession of the properties based on a Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage executed on September 10, 1998.
• The trial court denied the motion on September 12, 2002 but subsequently issued an alias writ of possession. However, its implementation was suspended after respondents filed an Affidavit of Third Party Claim and further motions, leading to a 7 March 2003 RTC Order suspending the writ per the contention that third parties holding adverse rights to the judgment obligor must be given an opportunity to be heard.
• BPI Family pursued several motions including an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to compel enforcement of the writ on February 11, 2003, but the RTC maintained the suspension. A motion for reconsideration filed by BPI Family was also denied on June 20, 2003.
• BPI Family then elevated the matter with a petition for mandamus and certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition as well as the subsequent motion for reconsideration on December 19, 2006.

Petition for Review and Final Court Action

• BPI Family eventually filed a petition for review addressing the suspension of the writ and other issues pertaining to the adverse possession argument raised by the respondents.
• Ultimately, the Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the Court of Appeals decisions and RTC orders that had suspended the implementation of the writ of possession, and ordered the sheriff to proceed with its enforcement despite the pending Civil Case No. 99-0360.

Issue:

Classification of Respondents’ Possession

• Whether the respondents, having acquired the properties through a Deed of Absolute Sale, are merely successors-in-interest of CEDEC rather than third parties in possession claiming adverse rights.
• Whether their possession, based on stepping into the shoes of the mortgagor/CEDEC, negates the application of the exception provided under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that would normally suspend a ministerial writ of possession.

Impact of the Pending Annulment Case

• Whether the pending annulment case (Civil Case No. 99-0360) questioning the legality of the mortgage or auction sale is a valid ground to bar or suspend the issuance and implementation of the writ of possession.
• Whether the adjudication of possession can be delayed by a separate pending court action concerning the mortgage or sale without affecting the rights of the purchaser as established by extrajudicial foreclosure.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)