Facts:

• Norma V. Javate is the petitioner; Renato J. Tiotuico and Lerma C. Tiotuico are the respondents.
• The petitioner mortgaged a 1,000 square meter parcel of land in Mabalacat, Pampanga, to Guagua Rural Bank for a loan.
• The bank foreclosed the mortgage due to the petitioner's non-payment, selling the property at a public auction where the bank was the highest bidder.
• A certificate of sale was issued to the bank, and after the one-year redemption period expired without the petitioner redeeming the property, the bank consolidated ownership and obtained a new title.
• The respondents purchased the property from the bank and received a new title in their names.
• On December 9, 2004, the respondents filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the RTC of Angeles City, Pampanga.
• The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents on July 15, 2005, granting the writ.
• The petitioner appealed on August 11, 2005, and the respondents later filed a motion for a writ of possession pending appeal, which the RTC granted on March 28, 2006.
• The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading her to file a petition for certiorari with the CA, which was denied on March 18, 2008.
• The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA.
• The petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was denied on June 8, 2009, for lack of merit, becoming final on October 8, 2009.
• On April 1, 2008, the respondents filed a motion to implement the writ of possession, granted by the RTC on June 27, 2008.
• The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on August 4, 2008.
• The petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC, which was dismissed, leading to the current case.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, affirming the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court.
• The Court held that the respondents wer...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Court's reasoning was based on legal principles regarding the issuance of a writ of possession after a foreclosure sale.
• It recognized that while subsequent purchasers must follow judicial processes to obtain possession, the respondents were justified in seeking a writ of possession.
• The Court referenced the case of Okabe v. Saturnino, which established that a writ of possession cou...continue reading