You are on page 1of 13

LAND TITLE AND DEEDS

DIGESTED CASES
YEAR 2010
CAALAM, KIMBERLY
DELA CRUZ, JOHN RELLY
DEL ROSARIO, CHING
DELOS SANTOS, ROSANA
ENCISO, JULIUS
MANGOTARA, RAISALIE
MOLINA, DANI VITTORIO
CAALAM, KIMBERLY
HEIRS OF DOMINGO VALIENTES VS HON. REINERIO B. RAMAS AND VILMA MINOR
G.R. No. 157852 D!"#$ 15, 2%1%

FACTS&
Petitioners claim that they are the heirs of Domingo Valientes who, before his death, was the
owner of a parcel of land in Zamboanga del Sur then covered by an Original Certificate of Title
Domingo Valientes mortgaged the sub!ect property to secure his loan to the spouses "elen, but
later on failed to retrieve the sub!ect property
#n $%&%, the spouses "elen obtained a Transfer Certificate of Title on the land in their
name The legitimate children of the late Domingo Valientes, had their 'ffidavit of 'dverse
Claim duly entered at the bac( of the TCT )pon the death of the spouses "elen, their surviving
heirs sold the property in favor of private respondent Vilma Valencia*+inor, the present
possessor of the sub!ect property

On $%%,, petitioners filed a Complaint for the Cancelation of the TCT of the sub!ect land,
-econveyance plus Damages The -TC dismissed the case Petitioners brought the case to the
Court of 'ppeals, which decided that the case cannot prosper on the grounds of prescription and
laches because the complaint was filed almost .% years after the issuance of the TCT
Petitioners brought the matter to the Supreme Court alleging that although the complaint was
captioned Cancellation of Transfer Certificate and -econveyance, it is substantially in the nature
of an action to /uiet title which allegedly does not prescribe
They also alleged that given that prescription will apply, the prescriptive period that should be
used is 01 years as provided in 'rticle $$2$ of the Civil Code, in connection with 'rticles $$02
and $$03 thereof, because the respondent4s predecessor*in interest ac/uired the property thru
fraud which constitutes bad faith on their part

ISSUE&
$ 5hether or not the action filed by the Valientes is an action to /uite title, thus,
imprescriptible
. 5hether or not the prescriptive period in case of reconveyance based on implied trust is
01 years because the one in possession ac/uired the property thru fraud, thus,
constituting bad faith
HELD&
$ T' ()*)*o+$, -$ +o) *+ (o,,,,*o+ o. )' ,/#0!) ($o($)1, '+! )'*$ -!)*o+ *,
o+ o. $!o+21-+! -+3 +o) -!)*o+ )o 4/*) )*)5. The action being based on implied
trust has already prescribed because it was filed .% years after the issuance of the TCT
'n action for reconveyance is a legal remedy granted to a landowner whose property
has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another4s name, which "/,) # .*53
6*)'*+ )+ 1-$, .$o" )' *,,/-+! o. )' )*)5 ,*+! ,/!' *,,/-+! o($-), -, -
!o+,)$/!)*2 +o)*!.
The cause of action of petitioners in the case, wherein they claim that private respondent
+inor4s predecessor*in*interest ac/uired the sub!ect property by forgery, can indeed be
considered as that of enforcing an implied trust, as stated in 'rticle $26& of the 7ew Civil
Code
'rt $26& #f property is ac/uired through mista(e or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by
force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from
whom the property comes
The action of the petitioners Valientes was filed on $%%, which was way beyond the
prescriptive period since the TCT was issued on $%&%
.
Art. 1141. Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years.
This provision is without prejudice to what is established for the acquisition of ownership
and other real rights by prescription.
Art. 1134. wnership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by
ordinary prescription through possession of ten years.
Art. 113!. wnership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe through
uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years" without need of title or of good
faith.
'rticles $$2$, $$02 and $$03 of the C*2*5 Co3, 'o62$, -$ 7+$-5 $/5, o+
($,!$*()*o+ 6'*!' ,'o/53 7*2 6-1 )o )' ,(!*-5 ,)-)/) o+ $7*,)$3 5-+3,,
8$,*3+)*-5 D!$ No. 1529 )nder the Torrens System as enshrined in PD 7o
$6.%, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued become incontrovertible
upon the e8piration of one year from the date of entry of the decree of registration,
without pre!udice to an action for damages against the applicant or any person
responsible for the fraud
9et, the right to see( reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust is not
absolute nor is it imprescriptible 'n action for reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens
title over the property
's discussed above, the case was filed almost .% years from the issuance of the TCT
This period is unreasonably long for a party see(ing to enforce its right to file the
appropriate case
DELA CRUZ, JOHN RELLY
RE8UBLIC VS HON. MANGOTARA
GR NO. 17:;%1, J-+/-$1 7, 2%1%,
FACTS&
This includes the $%$2 and $%%3 Cacho cases Sometime in the early $%%14s, the late Dona
Demetria Cacho applied for the registration of two parcels of land, namely, a smaller parcel with
an area of 0,&06 s/ meters and a larger parcel with an area of 03,,313 s/ meters "oth were
situated in what was then the +unicipality of #ligan, +oro Province, which later became later the
Sitio 7unucan, then "arangay Suare:, in #ligan City, ;anao del 7orte #n one of the Court4s
decision, it affirmed in toto the decision of the land registration court Come $%%3, Teofilo Cacho,
claiming to be the son and sole heir of Dona Demetria, filed before the -TC a petition for the
reconstitution of two original certificates of title 'fter so many legal battles, the decrees of
registration were re*issued bearing new numbers and OCTs were issued for the two parcels of
land in Dona Demetria4s name
On October $0, .112 , the -epublic filed a complaint for the cancellation of OCT4s and reversion
against late Dona Demetria, represented by her alleged heirs together with 'Z#+)T< and
;'7DT-'D= Vidal and 'Z#+)T< filed a +otion to Dismiss on the ground that the -epublic
has no cause of action and their present petition is barred by res !udicata and prescription The
trial court ruled against -epublic
ISSUE&
5hether or not the action for prescription is barred by prescription
HELD&
The Supreme Court ruled in the 7=>'T#V=
-eversion is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert bac( the land bac( to the
>overnment under the -egalian doctrine Considering that the land sub!ect of the action
originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and
the grantee
7onetheless, elementary is the rule that prescription does not run against the State and its
subdivisions 5hen the government is the real party in interest and it is proceeding mainly to
assert its own right to recover its own property, there can be as a rule no defense grounded on
laches or prescription Public land fraudulently included in patents or certificates of title may be
recovered or reverted to the State in accordance with Section $1$ of the Public ;and 'ct The
right of reversion or reconveyance to the State is not barred by prescription
#? the -epublic is able to established after trial and hearing of Civil Case no &&,& that decrees
and OCT4s are void for some reason, then the trial court can still order the reversion of the
parcels of land covered by the same because indefeasibility cannot attach to a void decree or
certificate of title

DEL ROSARIO, CHING
FLOR MARTINEZ VS ERNESTO GARCIA
G.R. No. 1<<5:<, F#$/-$1 ;, 2%1%
FACTS&
-espondent =dilberto"rua was the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by a Transfer
Certificate of TitleThe property was first mortgaged to the >overnment Service #nsurance
System and such mortgage was annotated in $%32 On ?ebruary $%,1, respondent "rua
obtained a loan from his brother*in*law, respondent =rnesto >arciaand, to secure the payment
of said loan, respondent "rua mortgaged the sub!ect property to respondent >arcia, evidenced
by a Deed of -eal =state +ortgage Since the title to the sub!ect property was in the
possession of the >S#S and respondent >arcia could not register the Deed of -eal =state
+ortgage, he then e8ecuted an 'ffidavit of 'dverse Claimand registered it with the -egistry of
Deeds
Then, respondent "rua re/uested respondent >arcia to pay the former@s loan with the >S#S, so
that the title to the sub!ect property would be released to the latter -espondent >arcia then paid
>S#Sthus, the title to the sub!ect property was released to him
' Deed of 'bsolute Salewas e8ecuted between respondents >arcia and "rua over the sub!ect
property-espondent >arcia then registered the Deed of Sale with the -egistry of Deeds and a
new TCT was issued in the names of respondent >arcia and his wife <owever, the annotations
at the bac( of the previous title were carried over to the new title in favor of the petitioner which
was inscribed on Auly $%,,
#t appeared that the annotations found at the bac( of the title of the sub!ect property in favor of
petitionerwere all made in connection with petitioner@s action for Collection of Sum of +oney,
which she filed against respondent "rua#n that case, a decision was rendered in favor of
petitioner, where the -TC ordered respondent "rua to pay the former The decision became
final and e8ecutory as respondent "rua failed to appeal the same, and a notice of levy on
e8ecution was issued ' public auction was subse/uently conducted, where the sub!ect property
was awarded to petitioner as the sole bidder and a Certificate of Sale was issued in her favor
-espondents >arcia and "rua filedan 'ction to Buiet Title, initiallyagainst petitioner due to the
encumbrancesCliens annotated on respondent >arcia@s new title They contended that these
encumbrancesCliens were registered subse/uent to the annotation of respondent >arcia@s
adverse claim
The -TC dismissed the case of the respondent and that it found that the adverse claim which
respondent >arcia caused to be annotatedwas merely that of a second mortgagee and that
respondent >arcia@s inaction to preserve his adverse claim as a second mortgageewhen
petitioner@s 7otice of ;evy on 'ttachment andCor ;evy, 7otice of ;evy on =8ecution and
Certificate of Sale were already inscribed at the bac( of respondent "rua@s title showed bad faith
on the part of respondent
On appeal, the C' reversed the -TC decision and averred that a subse/uent sale of property
covered by a certificate of title cannot prevail over an adverse claim The C' found that in order
to protect his interest, respondent >arcia e8ecuted an 'ffidavit of 'dverse Claim and annotated
it on the title of the sub!ect property and that the same is not cancelled ?urther, that such
adverse claim was registered prior to the inscription of the Certificate of Sale in favor of
petitionerthus, the latter was deemed to have (nowledge of respondent >arcia@s claim and
could not be considered as a buyer in good faith at the time she purchased the sub!ect property
in the public auction
ISSUE&
5hether the adverse claim issued in favor of the respondent inscribed on the title of the
property is a notice of the latter4s interest adverse to that of the petitioner
HELD&
The SC ruled in favor of the respondents and stated that the deed of mortgage e8ecuted by
respondent "rua in favor of >arcia was annotated on respondent "rua@s title which was
registered with the -egistry of Deeds
The adverse claim already e8isted when the 7otice of ;evy on =8ecution, as well as the
Certificate of Sale in favor of petitioner, was inscribedhence, the adverse claimis sufficient to
constitute constructive notice to petitioner regarding the sub!ect property 5hen petitioner
registered her 7otice of ;evy on =8ecution on the title of the sub!ect property, she was charged
with the (nowledge that the sub!ect property sought to be levied upon on e8ecution was
encumbered by an interest the same as or better than that of the registered owner thereof
The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person
over a piece of real property, where the registration of such interest or right is not otherwise
provided for by the ;and -egistration 'ct and serves a warning to third parties dealing with said
property that someone is claiming an interest on the same or a better right than that of the
registered owner thereof
?urther, petitioner cannot be considered as a buyer in good faith ' purchaser in good faith and
for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a
right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of such
purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property
DELOS SANTOS, ROSANA
RE8UBLIC OF THE 8HILI88INES
2,.
A8OLINARIO CATARROJA, REYNALDO CATARROJA, -+3 ROSITA CATARROJA=
DISTRITO,
GR No. 1717;;, F#$/-$1 12, 2%1%
FACTS&
The Catarro!as filed a petition for reconstitution of lost original certificate of titlescovering two
lots located in Zapang, Ternate, Cavite with areas of .&%,&%6 s/uare meters and 62&,.0%
s/uare meters They alleged that they inherited said lots from their parents, who reportedly
applied for the registration of the two lots with the C?# of Cavite sometime before the last world
war 'ccording to them, pursuant to the decree issued by the land registration court, the
-egister of Deeds of Cavite issued original certificates of title to their parents and based on the
certification issued by the ;-', the original copy of the titles were lost in fire when the old Cavite
Capitol "uilding was gutted with fire on Aune 3, $%6% They also claimed that their parents lost
the owner4s duplicate copy
#n confirming that the land registration court issued Decree 32%%0. on +ay .$, $%2$ covering
the sub!ect lots, the ;-' issued a certification on 'ugust 0, $%%, and a report on ?ebruary 2,
.11. verifying as correct the plans and technical description of the sub!ects lots which have
been approved under ;-' P-*$%12. and ;-' P-*$1120 but provided that a copy of the
Decree was no longer available in their records
The -TC of Cavite granted the petition, while the C', on appeal, reversed the -TC4s decision
but on motion for reconsideration filed by the Catarro!as, the C' set aside its decision and
issued an amended decision finding sufficient evidence to allow the reconstitution
ISSUE&
5hether or not the C' erred in finding sufficient evidence to grant the petition for reconstitution
of title despite the lac( of evidence re/uired by -' .& on reconstitution of lost or destroyed
Torrens certificates of titleD
HELD&
9es, the C' erred in granting the petition for reconstitution of title
-' .& governs the reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens certificates of title #ts Section .
enumerates the following sources for the reconstitution of such titlesE
FaG The owner4s duplicate of the certificate of titleH
FbG The co*owner4s, mortgagee4s, or lessee4s duplicate of the certificate of titleH
FcG ' certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds or
by a legal custodian thereofH
FdG 'n authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be,
pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issuedH
FeG ' document, on file in the -egistry of Deeds, by which the property, the description of
which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an
authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registeredH and
FfG 'ny other document which, in the !udgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis
for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title
The Catarro!as have been unable to present any of the documents mentioned in paragraphs FaG
to FeG aboveThey did not have a certified copy of such certificate of title or a co*owner4s, a
mortgagee4s, or a lessee4s duplicate of the sameThe only documentary evidence the Catarro!as
could produce as possible sources for the reconstitution of the lost title are those other
documents described in paragraph FfG
#n -epublic v #ntermediate 'ppellate Court, the Supreme Courtapplied the principle of e!usdem
generis in interpreting Section .FfG of -' .& I'ny other documentI refers to reliable
documents of the (ind described in the preceding enumerations The Supreme Court is not
convinced that the above documents of the Catarro!as fall in the same class as those
enumerated in paragraphs FaG to FeG 7one of them proves that a certificate of title had in fact
been issued in the name of their parents+oreover, the Catarro!as failed to show that they
e8erted efforts to loo( for and avail of the sources in paragraphs FaG to FeG before availing
themselves of the sources in paragraph FfG
?urther, in -epublic v Tuastumban, the Supreme Court enumerated what needs to be shown
before the issuance of an order for reconstitutionE FaG that the certificate of title had been lost or
destroyedH FbG that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant
reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of titleH FcG that the petitioner is the registered
owner of the property or had an interest thereinH FdG that the certificate of title was in force at the
time it was lost or destroyedH and FeG that the description, area and boundaries of the property
are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title
The microfilm printouts of the Official >a:ette are not proof that a certificate of title was in fact
issued in the name of the Catarro!as4 parents The publication in the Official >a:ette only proved
that the couple too( the initial step of publishing their claim to the property There was no
showing, however, that the application had been granted and that a certificate of title was issued
to them
'bsent a clear and convincing proof that an original certificate of title had in fact been issued to
their parents in due course, the Catarro!as cannot claim that their predecessors succeeded in
ac/uiring title to the sub!ect lots The nature of reconstitution of a lost or destroyed certificate of
title denotes a restoration of the instrument in its original form and condition That cannot be
done without proof that such certificate of title had once e8isted The procedures laid down in
-' .& for reconstituting a title have to be strictly followed considering that reconstitution, if
made easy, could be the source of anomalous titles #t could also be unscrupulously availed of
by some as a convenient substitute for the rigid proceedings involved in original registration of
title
ENCISO, JULIUS
VDA DE AGUILAR VS. ALFARO
G.R. No. 1<;;%2 JULY 5, 2%1%
FACTS&
On +ay $&, $%33, petitioner4s husband #gnacio was issued OCT over a parcel of land Prior
thereto, #gnacio allowed petitioner4s sister, 'nastacia )rieta, mother of respondent, to construct
a house on the said land and to stay therein temporarily #n $%%2, #gnacio died and his heirs
decided to partition and as(ed respondents to vacate the said land )pon the refusal of the
respondents, the petitioner filed a case for accion publiciana -espondent asserted that on 'pril
$3, $%30, #gnacio and herein petitioner sold to their mother the lot as shown by the
JK'S);'T'7 S' "#;#<'7L and the ta8 declaration -espondent also raised the defense of
prescription -TC ruled in favor of the petitioner <owever, C' reversed the decision
ISSUES&
5hether or not Torrens Title can be attac(ed in a collaterally in an accion publiciana
5hether or not a deed of sale can prevail over Torrens Title as a proof of ownership
HELD&
7o 'ccion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession
of reality independently of title #t is an e!ectment suit filed after the e8piration of one year from
the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty
)nder Section 2, of PD 7o $6.%, a certificate of title cannot be the sub!ect of collateral attac(,
which is not permitted under the principle of indefeasibility of Torrens Title, whether or not it was
fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action e8pressly instituted for that purpose The
ad!udication herein is not final and binding determination of the issue of ownership
7o #t is settled that a Torrens Title is evidence of indefeasible title to property in favor of the
person in whose name the title appears #t is also settled that the title holder is entitled to all the
attributes of ownership of the property, including possession -espondents only have their
notari:ed but unregistered JK'S);'T'7 S' "#;#<'7L, thus even if that proof of ownership has
in its favor a !unos tautum presumption of authenticity and due e8ecution, the same cannot
prevail over petitioners Torrens title
MANGOTARA, RAISALIE
FIRST BAY AREA BANL VS S8OUSES CASCO AND JAIME DU8ITAS
GR No. 178:<8 F#$/-$1 22, 2%1%
FACTS&
?irst "ay 'rea "an(, #nc won a !udgment against Thelma and Aaime Dupitas, resulting in the
issuance of a writ of e8ecution against them by the +unicipal Circuit Trial Court of +alalag*
Sulop, Davao del Sur The sheriff levied on the properties of the spouses Dupitas, and sold
these lands at public auction to ?irst "ay
"ecause the spouses Dupitas failed to redeem their titled lands, the sheriff issued a final
certificate of sale in favor of ?irst "ay Subse/uently, the 'cting -egistrar of Deeds wrote the
spouses Dupitas, re/uiring them to surrender their owner@s duplicate copies of land titles so it
could annotate the sheriffs sale on them "ut the spouses Dupitas failed to do so despite
repeated demands
-TC ruled that !ust because ?irst "ay had been unable to get copies of the owner@s duplicate
copies of the titles from the spouses Dupitas, it did not mean that it was already !ustified The
-TC ruled that petitioner ?irst "ay had resorted to the wrong remedy for the transfer of the titles
to its name The proper remedy, said the -TC, was an action for specific performance ?irst "ay
filed a motion for reconsideration of the order but the -TC denied the same in its Order dated
Aune $., .113
ISSUE&
whether or not an action for specific performance is the correct remedy where the !udgment
debtor un!ustifiably refuses to surrender the title to the land sold at public auction, thus,
preventing the register of deeds from transferring the title to the buyer@s name
HELD&
Section $13 of PD $6.% provides the procedure to be observed in case the !udgment debtor
refuses to surrender the duplicate copy of his certificate of title #t readsE
S=CT#O7 $13 Surrender of 5ithheld Duplicate Certificate *5here it is necessary to issue a
new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divests the title of the
registered owner against his consent or where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered by
reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owner@s duplicate certificate of title,
the party in interest may file a petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the -egister
of Deeds The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person withholding
the duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate of
memorandum upon such surrender #f the person withholding the duplicate certificate is not
amenable to the process of the court, or if for any reason the outstanding owner@s duplicate
certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order the annulment of the same as well as the
issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof Such new certificate and all duplicates
thereof shall contain a memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate
' party*in*interest may file a petition in the -TC to compel the surrender of the owner@s duplicate
certificate of titleE
aG 5here it is necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary
instrument Fsuch as attachment or sale on e8ecutionG which divests the title of the registered
owner against his consentH
bG 5here a voluntary instrument Fsuch as conveyances, mortgage or leaseG cannot be
registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owner@s duplicate
certificate of titleH and
cG 5here the owner@s duplicate certificate is not presented for amendment or alteration
pursuant to a court orderM0N
'fter hearing the petition, the court mayE
aG
Order the registered owner or any person withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the
same, and direct the entry of a new certificate or memorandum upon such surrenderH or
bG
Order the annulment of the owner@s duplicate certificate and the issuance of a new certificate in
lieu thereof if the person withholding the same, is not amenable to the court@s processes, or if for
any reason said owner@s duplicate certificate cannot be surrendered Such new certificate and
all duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding
duplicate
The Court sees no reason to digress from the above established rulings
The court D#-=CTS the -egister of Deeds of Davao del Sur to cancel Transfer Certificates of
Title in the name of Thelma and Aaime Dupitas and to issue new ones in the name of ?irst "ay
'rea "an(, #nc
MOLINA, DANI VITTORIO
CUA LAI CHU, CLARO G. CASTRO, -+3 JUANITA CASTRO,
2,.
HON. HILARIO L. LA>UI, 8$,*3*+7 J/37, R7*o+-5 T$*-5 Co/$), B$-+!' 218,
>/?o+ C*)1 -+3 8HILI88INE BANK OF COMMUNICATION
G.R. No. 1<919% F#$/-$1 11, 2%1%
FACTS&
#n 7ovember $%%2, petitioners obtained a loan in the amount of P0, .11,111 from private
respondent Philippine "an( of Communication To secure the loan, petitioners e8ecuted in favor
of private respondent a Deed of -eal =state +ortgage over the property of petitioner spouses
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title 7o ..%%1 #n 'ugust $%%3, petitioners e8ecuted an
'mendment to the Deed of -eal =state +ortgage increasing the amount of the loan by P$,
,11,111, bringing the total loan amount to P6, 111,111
?or failure of petitioners to pay the full amount of the outstanding loan upon demand, private
respondent applied for the e8tra!udicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage )pon receipt of
a notice of the e8tra!udicial foreclosure sale, petitioners filed a petition to annul the e8tra!udicial
foreclosure sale with a prayer for temporary restraining order FT-OG The trial court granted
petitioners4 prayer for T-O The trial court subse/uently lifted the T-O and reset the
e8tra!udicial foreclosure sale on .% +ay .11. 't the foreclosure sale, private respondent
emerged as the highest bidder ' certificate of sale was e8ecuted on 2 Aune .11. in favor of
private respondent On 3 Aune .11., the certificate of sale was annotated as =ntry 7o $,66 on
TCT 7o ..%%1 covering the foreclosed property
'fter the lapse of the one*year redemption period, private respondent filed in the -egistry of
Deeds of Bue:on City an affidavit of consolidation to consolidate its ownership and title to the
foreclosed property ?orthwith, on , Auly .110, the -egister of Deeds cancelled TCT 7o ..%%1
and issued in its stead TCT 7o .6$,06 in the name of private respondent
On $, 'ugust .112, private respondent applied for the issuance of a writ of possession of the
foreclosed property Petitioners filed an opposition The trial court granted private respondent4s
motion for a declaration of general default and allowed private respondent to present
evidence e8 parte The trial court denied petitioners4 notice of appeal
)ndeterred, petitioners filed in the Court of 'ppeals a petition for certiorari The appellate court
dismissed the petition The Court of 'ppeals dismissed on both procedural and substantive
grounds the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners The matter was thus elevated to the SC
ISSUE&
5hether or not the writ of possession was properly issued
HELD&
Possession was properly issued
#n "anco ?ilipino Savings and +ortgage "an( v Pardo s/uarely ruled on the right to possession
of a purchaser at an e8tra!udicial foreclosure of a mortgage This case involved a real estate
mortgage as security for a loan obtained from a ban( )pon the mortgagor4s default, the ban(
e8tra!udicially foreclosed the mortgage 't the auction sale, the ban( was the highest bidder '
certificate of sale was duly issued and registered The ban( then applied for the issuance of a
writ of possession, which the lower court dismissed The Court reversed the lower court and
held that the purchaser at the auction sale was entitled to a writ of possession pending the lapse
of the redemption period upon a simple motion and upon the posting of a bond
#n the present case, the certificate of sale of the foreclosed property was annotated on TCT 7o
..%%1 on 3 Aune .11. The redemption period thus lapsed on 3 Aune .110, one year from the
registration of the sale Once ownership has been consolidated, the issuance of the writ of
possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court, upon proper application and proof of title #n
the present case, when private respondent applied for the issuance of a writ of possession, it
presented a new transfer certificate of title issued in its name dated , Auly .110 The right of
private respondent to the possession of the property was thus founded on its right of ownership
's the purchaser of the property at the foreclosure sale, in whose name title over the property
was already issued, the right of private respondent over the property had become absolute,
vesting in it the corollary right of possession
Petition is denied