Case Summary (G.R. No. 169453)
Background of the Case
The Espiritu spouses failed to redeem the foreclosed properties after they were sold at auction on January 12, 1982. Consequently, the United Coconut Planters Bank consolidated ownership and obtained transfer certificates of title for the properties. On February 16, 1990, the bank filed an ex-parte motion for a writ of possession, seeking to recover the properties still occupied by the Espiritu spouses. The judge denied this initial motion, prompting the bank to file subsequent motions that were also denied.
Legal Issues Presented
The central issue is whether the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the bank’s ex parte motion for the writ of possession after the expiration of the redemption period. The respondent judge had ruled that the Espiritu spouses needed to be included as respondents in a formal petition to comply with jurisdictional and due process requirements.
Relevant Legal Provisions
The provisions of Act No. 3135, specifically Section 7, govern the issuance of writs of possession following extrajudicial foreclosure. This section allows the purchaser to seek a writ by filing an ex-parte application, which is automatically granted upon compliance with specific legal requirements, including the approval of a bond during the redemption period.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The ruling emphasizes that, under Section 7, an ex parte motion is sufficient for obtaining a writ of possession, particularly during the redemption period. It further clarifies that even after the expiration of that period, the court retains the authority to issue a writ of possession upon an ex parte application, as long as there are no adverse rights claimed by third parties. In this case, since the bank had consolidated its ownership and secured new titles, the requirement for a bond and the need for additional respondents were deemed unnecessary.
Conclusion of the Court
The court found that the respondent judge had indeed committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the bank’s motions. The necessity for a bond was clarified: the bond is primarily for protecting the rights of the judgment debtor only during the redemption period. After the expiration of this period an
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 169453)
Case Background
- The case involves United Coconut Planters Bank (petitioner) and Hon. Luis R. Reyes (respondent judge).
- The petitioner extended credit accommodations of P260,000.00 to spouses Teodoro and Sonia Espiritu, which were secured by real estate mortgages on four parcels of land in Kawit, Cavite.
- The Espiritu spouses defaulted on their obligations, leading to the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties.
- On January 12, 1982, the properties were auctioned and sold to the petitioner, who received a certificate of sale.
- Following the expiration of the redemption period, the petitioner consolidated ownership and obtained Transfer Certificates of Title in its name.
Procedural History
- On February 16, 1990, the petitioner filed an ex parte motion for a writ of possession in LRC Case No. 598-90, seeking to take possession of the properties that the Espiritu spouses continued to occupy.
- The respondent judge, on July 6, 1990, directed the petitioner to file a proper petition and include the Espiritu spouses as respondents for the court to exercise jurisdiction.
- The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on August 14, 1990, due to non-compliance with legal requirements and the court's lack of jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.
- A second motion for reconsideration was filed on August 24, 1990, but was again denied on August 29, 1990 for lack of merit.