Title
Spouses Gallent vs. Velasquez
Case
G.R. No. 203949
Decision Date
Apr 6, 2016
Spouses Gallent, after mortgaging and losing property to foreclosure, assigned rights to Velasquez, who sought possession via ex parte writ. SC ruled writ invalid, favoring Gallents as adverse claimants, deeming assignment an equitable mortgage.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 203949)

Antecedent Facts

The Spouses Gallent owned a residential property in Alabang Hills Village, Muntinlupa City, which they mortgaged to Allied Banking Corporation for a loan of PHP 1.5 million. Due to non-payment, Allied Bank foreclosed on the property, emerging as the highest bidder at the public auction held on September 25, 2000. After failing to redeem the property within the statutory period, Allied Bank consolidated its ownership and issued a new title.

In June 2003, Allied Bank agreed to sell the property back to the Spouses Gallent. Facing financial difficulties, they enlisted the help of Velasquez, who assumed their obligations under the Purchase Agreement and paid the remaining balance owed to Allied Bank. A deed of sale was executed between Velasquez and Allied Bank; however, the sale was not registered, leading to further complications.

Issuance of Writ of Possession

On July 6, 2009, Velasquez filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession against the Spouses Gallent after they refused to vacate the property. The Muntinlupa RTC ruled in favor of Velasquez, asserting that it was a ministerial duty of the court to issue the writ based on Velasquez's ownership rights derived from Allied Bank.

The Spouses Gallent's motions to dismiss the petition were denied, prompting them to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, contending that Velasquez did not have the right to seek such a writ because he had not acquired the property through a foreclosure sale.

Court of Appeals Rulings

The Court of Appeals issued two conflicting decisions. The CA 10th Division upheld the issuance of the writ of possession, reasoning that Velasquez, as a transferee of the property, inherited the right to seek a writ of possession after Allied Bank had consolidated its title. Conversely, the CA Special 4th Division denied Velasquez's petition, claiming that an ex parte writ could not be issued against the Spouses Gallent, who were in actual possession of the property.

Supreme Court Decision

In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Spouses Gallent, highlighting the distinction between rights obtained through foreclosure and those derived from private transactions. The Court noted that an ex parte writ of possession is typically a ministerial duty of the court when issued in favor of a new owner after a foreclosure sale; however, such a right ceases to exist when the property is in the possession of individuals claiming ownership adversely to the buyer.

The Spouses Gallent argued that their agreement with Velasquez constituted an equitable mortgage rather than an outright sale, as they had made substantial payments offset

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.