Title
Supreme Court
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Spouses Co
Case
G.R. No. 171172
Decision Date
Nov 9, 2015
Jupiter and Spouses Co defaulted on a loan, leading to foreclosure by BPI. SC upheld the writ of possession, ruling it ministerial after ownership consolidation, denying consolidation with annulment case.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 171172)

Relevant Loans and Mortgages

On November 13, 1997, Jupiter Real Estate Ventures, Inc. and Spouses Co secured a loan from Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) for ₱9,434,200.00, pledging eight parcels of land as collateral. This loan arrangement laid the groundwork for subsequent legal disputes once the borrowers defaulted and BPI, as the successor of FEBTC, moved to foreclose the mortgage.

Foreclosure Process and Properties Sold

Due to default on the loan, BPI initiated foreclosure proceedings according to Act No. 3135, leading to an auction sale of the mortgaged properties on July 12, 2000, with BPI emerging as the highest bidder at ₱3,567,000.00. The subsequent actions included the registration of the Certificate of Sale and the issuance of new titles in BPI's name after the redemption period expired without redemption by the mortgagors.

Legal Actions and RTC Proceedings

On August 7, 2002, Spouses Co and Jupiter filed a complaint to nullify the foreclosure, which was met with BPI filing for a writ of possession shortly after. The RTC denied the motion to consolidate these cases, noting they could be pursued independently. The RTC's orders on December 15, 2005, and January 13, 2006, allowed the elevation of a notice of appeal filed by Spouses Co and Jupiter to the Court of Appeals, enabling them to contest the writ of possession.

Issues on Appeal

BPI raised issues regarding the appealability of the RTC's order granting the writ of possession, arguing that it was interlocutory and thus not subject to appeal. Conversely, Spouses Co maintained that the order was appealable and argued for their substantive right to challenge the writ of possession.

Ruling on the Writ of Possession

The court upheld BPI’s right to possess the properties post-foreclosure, stating that following or upon the expiration of the redemption period, the purchaser's entitlement to possession becomes absolute. The court ruled against Spouses Co's claims regarding the pendency of the petition for rehabilitation and a stay order, reaffirming BPI's rights as the new title holder.

Legal Principles on Remedies

The discussion surrounding the remedies available for contesting a writ of possession clarified that following the foreclosure and after the redemption period, the proper recourse is either an appeal or a separate action, not a review under Section 8 of Act No. 3135. The Supreme Court noted that once the redemption period lapsed, the debtor could no longer contest possession through the mechanisms provided in the Act, instead potentially needing to pursue a recovery of ownership action.

Constitutionality of Act No. 3135

Spouses Co also

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.