Title
Supreme Court
Uy vs. 3Tops de Philippines Estate Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 248140
Decision Date
Jan 16, 2023
Petitioner challenges Writ of Possession issued to respondent after foreclosure; SC denies petition, citing ministerial duty to issue writ and mootness due to voluntary surrender.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 159469)

Petitioner and Respondent

  • Petitioner: Jacqueline S. Uy, representing her mother Lucy S. Uy, who was a previous owner of the properties in question.
  • Respondent: 3Tops De Philippines Estate Corporation, represented by its President Oscar M. Chua.

Applicable Law

The decision references relevant provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Act No. 3135, which governs extrajudicial foreclosure sales and subsequent possession of foreclosed properties.

Antecedents of the Case

Respondent filed an Ex Parte Petition on February 20, 2018, for the issuance of a writ of possession concerning two parcels of land in Bacolod City. The respondent claimed ownership of these properties following a series of transactions initiated after the original owner, Lucy S. Uy, defaulted on her mortgage obligations. Star Two, Inc. ultimately foreclosed the mortgage and subsequently sold the properties to the respondent.

Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court

The RTC granted the writ of possession in favor of the respondent based on its findings that the respondent had become the absolute owner after the mandatory redemption period had elapsed. The trial court noted that there were no claims of adverse possession from a third party at that time.

Petitioner argued that the trial court's actions were erroneous, citing potential bad faith by the respondent and irregularities in the foreclosure proceedings as barriers to enforcing the writ of possession.

Petitioner's Motion and the RTC's Denial

Petitioner filed an urgent motion to oppose the issuance of the writ, which the trial court denied on July 17, 2018, stating that the legality of the mortgage or foreclosure proceedings was not a valid reason to deny the writ of possession. Further, the trial court maintained that its duty to issue a writ of possession is ministerial, particularly since there was no viable claim of adverse possession.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC had abused its discretion. The appellate court dismissed the certiorari petition, affirming the trial court's orders and reiterating that the proper remedy to contest a writ of possession in such circumstances is an appeal under Act No. 3135. It stated that the existence of a pending civil case regarding the properties does not preclude the issuance of a writ of possession.

Core Issues Raised

  1. Whether petitioner availed herself of the appropriate legal remedy.
  2. Whether the trial court exercised grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the issuance of the writ of possession.
  3. Whether the alleged voluntary surrender of the subject properties by petitioner rendered the petition moot.

Evaluation of Legal Remedies

The appellate court concluded that the correct remedy for challenging the writ of possession is through a direct appeal, as specified in Act No. 3135. The court clarified that once the redemption period has passed without action by the mortgagor, the purchaser has an absolute right to possession. Therefore, the appellate court found no procedural misstep in the trial court's decision.

Finding on Grave Abuse of Discretion

The

...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.