Case Summary (G.R. No. 206598)
Antecedents
The Philippine Savings Bank filed an Ex Parte Petition requesting a writ of possession due to non-payment of a loan by Nicefora MiAoza, who had mortgaged a parcel of land as security. Following the default on the loan, the bank conducted an extrajudicial foreclosure, acquired the property at a public auction, and sought possession. Meanwhile, the petitioners claimed full ownership of the property and argued that the sale to MiAoza was based on forged documents. They also initiated a civil case against MiAoza for title cancellation and damages.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
The RTC denied the petitioners' Omnibus Motion, stating that the court had already granted the issuance of the writ of possession, which had become final. The court underscored its ministerial duty to issue the writ due to the completion of the foreclosure process, asserting that any pending civil cases related to the property would not impede this issuance.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA)
The CA upheld the RTC's ruling, dismissing the petitioners' arguments by emphasizing that they had relinquished their ownership through an absolute sale to MiAoza. The court clarified that since the petitioners had sold their rights, they could not claim entitlement to the property in question. Furthermore, the CA ruled that the petitioners’ claims concerning the bank's status as a mortgagee were irrelevant to the writ of possession, as the issuance is a ministerial act following foreclosure.
Issues Raised by the Petitioners
The petitioners identified several issues for consideration, primarily questioning whether they should be recognized as third-party claimants entitled to a hearing before their removal from the property. They argued that the deed of sale in favor of MiAoza was fraudulent and that they maintained possession of the property.
Analysis of the Issuance of Writ of Possession
The court reaffirmed that a buyer in a foreclosure sale can seek a writ of possession after the redemption period without needing a bond. The law dictates that once this period lapses, the purchaser becomes the absolute owner, allowing for immediate possession. The court rejected the idea that the petitioners retained any ownership rights after partially transferring these rights to MiAoza through an absolute sale.
Determination of Adverse Claim and Due Process
The ruling emphasized that the petitioners' assertion of being adverse claimants was baseless as they had previously so
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 206598)
Case Overview
- This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by spouses Salvador Batolinio and Amor P. Batolinio against Sheriff Janet Yap-Rosas and Philippine Savings Bank (PSB).
- The petition contests the Decision dated November 27, 2012, and the Resolution dated April 4, 2013, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 117859, which dismissed the petition for certiorari and denied a motion for reconsideration, respectively.
Antecedents
- The case originated from an Ex Parte Petition for the issuance of a writ of possession filed by Philippine Savings Bank (the private respondent).
- On October 26, 2007, Nicefora MiAoza obtained a loan of P5.7 million from PSB, securing it with a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land in Las Piñas City, covered by TCT No. T-108184.
- MiAoza defaulted on the loan, leading PSB to initiate an extrajudicial foreclosure, eventually acquiring the property at a public auction on June 23, 2008, and obtaining a certificate of sale.
- Despite PSB's demand for MiAoza and others to vacate the property, no action was taken, prompting the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to grant PSB's petition on July 29, 2010, and issue a writ of possession.
Petitioners' Claims
- The petitioners, Salvador and Amor Batolinio, claimed ownership of the subject property, asserting that it was originally titled under their name (TCT No. T-80337).
- They contended that in 2003, they mortgaged the property to Union Bank, and in 2007, they sold it to MiAoza under conditions involving a loan from PSB.
- They alleged that MiAoza forged their signatures on the deed of sale and certificate of full payment, claiming that MiAoza had no legal right to the property and thus could not convey it to PSB.
- The petitioners filed an adverse claim and a civil case for cancellation of title against MiAoza and o