PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK (PETITIONER-APPELLEE) VS.

SPS. ANTONIO DACDAC AND ROSALIE DACDAC

(OPPOSITORS-APPELLANTS)

This is an appeal from the decision of the

Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 72

(RTC) dated May 3, 2017 granting the prayer of

petitioner-appellee Philippine Savings Bank for

issuance of writ of possession in LRC Case No.

16-6646.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

On August 28, 2012, oppositors-appellants

Spouses Antonio Dacdac and Rosalie Dacdac

obtained a loan in the amount of P2,350,000.00

from petitioner-appellee, and as security for the

loan, they executed a real estate mortgage over a

parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of

Title (TCT) No. 681276 located in the Municipality

of Taytay, Province of Rizal. When the loan

became due and demandable, oppositors-

appellants failed to pay the obligation despite

demands made by petitioner-appellee, hence, the

latter filed an application for extrajudicial

foreclosure of real estate mortgage under Act No.

3135, as amended, with the RTC of Antipolo City

on January 18, 2016. Pursuant thereto, petitioner-

appellee complied with posting requirements of

the sheriff's notice of extra-judicial sale and

publication in a newspaper of general circulation

on February 13, 20 and 27, 2016. On April 20,

2016, the mortgaged property was sold at public

auction where petitioner-appellee won as highest

bidder and consequently, a certificate of sale dated

April 26, 2016 was issued in its favor. On May 5,

2016, the certificate of sale was registered with the

Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal.

On October 11, 2016, petitioner-appellee

filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Writ of Possession

praying that the sheriff be authorized to break

open any enclosed fence, door or window in

order to gain access to the house or

improvements on the foreclosed property covered

by TCT No. 681276; and to oust oppositors-

appellants or any other persons claiming rights

under them, and to place petitioner appellee in

actual possession of the same.

On May 3, 2017, the RTC rendered a

decision holding as follows:

“xxx xxx xxx

 In the instant case, it is

undisputed that the petitioner is the

highest bidder in the public auction

sale of the subject property. Thus, it

is entitled to possession of the same

subject to the posting of the bond to

be determined by the petitioner

starting from the time of possession.

Considering that the one (1)

year period within which to redeem

the property has not yet expired at

the time petitioner presented its

evidence on December 12,2016, and

no redemption was made by the

mortgagors after the Certificate of

Sale was issued onApril26, 2016 and

annotated on May 5, 2016.

 WHEREFORE, premises

considered, petitioner having proven

with preponderant evidence its prayer

for issuance of a writ of possession, the

same is GRANTED. Let a Writ of

Possession be issued directing the

Sheriff of this court to deliver the actual

possession of the subject property

located at Block 1,Lot 11, Phase 2,

Strawberry Street, Dividend Homes

Subdivision, San Juan, Taylay, Rizal,

duly registered in the names of the

Spouses Dacdac with all the existing

improvements thereon to the

petitioner after posting the required

bond in an amount equivalent to the

 reasonable rentals for the use of the

foreclosed property.

SO ORDERED.”

In this appeal, oppositors-appellants assail

the validity of the auction sale and the writ of

possession issued by the RTC, alleging that Mr.

William V. Varila, Jr. who participated in the

auction sale of the subject property had no legal

authority to represent petitionerappellee .

The appeal is devoid of merit.

Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act

4118, governs the issuance of a writ of possession

in cases of extrajudicial foreclosure sales of real

estate mortgage, to wit:

“Sec. 7. In any sale made under the

provisions of this Act, the purchaser

may petition the Court of First

Instance of the province or place

where the property or any part

thereof is situated, to give him

possession thereof during the

redemption period, furnishing bond in

an amount equivalent to the use of

the property for a period of twelve

months, to indemnify the debtor in

case it be shown that the sale was

made without violating the mortgage

or without complying with the

requirements of this Act. Such

petition shall be made under oath

and filed in form of an ex parte

 motion x x x and the court shall,

upon approval of the bond, order

that a writ of possession issue,

addressed to the sheriff of the

province in which the property is

situated, who shall execute said order

immediately.”

Hence, a writ of possession may be issued in favor of a

purchaser in a foreclosure sale of a real estate

mortgage either (1) within the one-year redemption

period, upon the filing of a bond; or (2) after the lapse of

the redemption period, without need of a bond. Within

the one-year redemption period, a purchaser in a

foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession by

filing a petition in the form of an ex parte motion under

oath for that purpose. Upon the filing of such motion with

the RTC having jurisdiction over the subject property

and the approval of the corresponding bond, the law,

also in express terms, directs the court to issue the

order for a writ of possession. On the other hand, after

the lapse of the redemption period, a writ of possession

may be issued in favor of the purchaser in a foreclosure

sale as the mortgagor is now considered to have lost

interest over the foreclosed property. Consequently, the

purchaser, who has a right to possession after the

expiration of the redemption period, becomes the

absolute owner of the property when no redemption is

made. In this regard, the bond is no longer needed.

The purchaser can demand possession at any time

following the consolidation of ownership in his name and

the issuance to him of a new TCT. After consolidation of

title in the purchaser’s name for failure of the mortgagor

to redeem the property, the purchaser's right to

possession ripens into the absolute right of a confirmed

owner. At that point, the issuance of a writ of

possession, upon proper application and proof of title, to

a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes

merely a ministerial function.

The RTC correctly issued writ of possession

prayed for, as the records clearly show that

petitioner-appellee has become the absolute and

registered owner of the subject property.