Case Summary (G.R. No. 200667)
Factual Background
The Spouses Centeno mortgaged the subject lots to the Rural Bank as security for a loan of ₱1,753.65. Upon defaulting on the loan, the bank proceeded with the extrajudicial foreclosure, ultimately acquiring ownership of the properties through an auction held on October 10, 1969. While the Spouses Centeno failed to redeem the lots within the stipulated one-year redemption period, they retained possession of the property until their son, Gerry Centeno, assumed control in 1983. Gerry subsequently purchased the lots from his parents on March 14, 1988, and paid the necessary capital gains taxes.
Procedural History
The Rural Bank later obtained a Final Deed of Sale and tax declarations in its name. On March 19, 1998, the bank filed for a writ of possession, claiming ownership following the foreclosure. Gerry Centeno contested this petition, asserting his long-term possession and claiming the validity of the property transfer from his parents. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the bank on October 8, 2002, declaring it the rightful owner and ordering the issuance of the writ. However, this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in a decision dated January 31, 2012.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA determined that Gerry Centeno was a third party with actual possession of the property, entitled to assert his claims through the proper judicial channels, such as an ejectment or a reinvindicatory action. The court argued that since the property was held adversely to the bank’s claim, the issuance of a writ of possession was not justified under these circumstances.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the CA's decision, ruling that the bank was entitled to a writ of possession. The Court reaffirmed the principle that once a mortgagor fails to redeem a property within the redemption period, the purchaser acquires an absolute right to possession. It emphasized that the petitioner's right to possession became ministerial after it consolidated title in its name. The Court clarified that Gerry Centeno, having acquired the property from his parents, did not hold the property adversely to the bank as he was merely a successor-in-interest.
Legal Principles Applied
The ruling invoked pertinent provisions from the Rules of Court, specifically Section 33, Rule 39, which stipulates that
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 200667)
Case Background
- The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari by the Rural Bank of Sta. Barbara (Iloilo), Inc. against Gerry Centeno concerning the issuance of a writ of possession for certain properties in Ajuy, Iloilo.
- The Cebu City Court of Appeals (CA) issued a decision on January 31, 2012, which reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Barotac Viejo's decision from October 8, 2002, denying the writ of possession favoring the petitioner.
Facts of the Case
- The subject lots were previously owned by spouses Gregorio and Rosario Centeno, who mortgaged them to the petitioner as security for a loan of P1,753.65.
- After defaulting on the loan, the petitioner conducted an extrajudicial foreclosure, leading to the auction sale where it acquired the properties.
- The Certificate of Sale was obtained on October 10, 1969, and registered on December 13, 1971.
- Despite the foreclosure, the Centenos continued to possess and cultivate the properties, with their son, Gerry Centeno, taking over cultivation in 1983.
- Gerry Centeno purchased the lots from his parents on March 14, 1988, with capital gains tax paid and tax declarations issued in his name.
- The petitioner later secured a Final Deed of Sale and tax declarations in its name in 1997 and 199