Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 414 views

    Cua Lai Chu Vs Laqui

    Uploaded by

    apbuera
    Cua Lai Chu obtained a loan secured by a real estate mortgage but failed to pay back Laqui. This led to an extrajudicial foreclosure by Laqui. Cua Lai Chu attempted to annul the foreclosure through court cases. The regional trial court initially ruled in favor of Cua Lai Chu but later reversed its decision. Laqui was then the highest bidder at auction and purchased the property, giving Cua Lai Chu one year to redeem it. When redemption failed to occur within one year, Laqui filed for consolidation of ownership and a writ of possession, which was granted, despite Cua Lai Chu's opposition. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cua Lai Chu Vs Laqui

    Uploaded by

    apbuera
    414 views1 page
    Cua Lai Chu obtained a loan secured by a real estate mortgage but failed to pay back Laqui. This led to an extrajudicial foreclosure by Laqui. Cua Lai Chu attempted to annul the foreclosure through court cases. The regional trial court initially ruled in favor of Cua Lai Chu but later reversed its decision. Laqui was then the highest bidder at auction and purchased the property, giving Cua Lai Chu one year to redeem it. When redemption failed to occur within one year, Laqui filed for consolidation of ownership and a writ of possession, which was granted, despite Cua Lai Chu's opposition. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Cua Lai Chu vs Laqui

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cua Lai Chu obtained a loan secured by a real estate mortgage but failed to pay back Laqui. This led to an extrajudicial foreclosure by Laqui. Cua Lai Chu attempted to annul the foreclosure through court cases. The regional trial court initially ruled in favor of Cua Lai Chu but later reversed its decision. Laqui was then the highest bidder at auction and purchased the property, giving Cua Lai Chu one year to redeem it. When redemption failed to occur within one year, Laqui filed for consolidation of ownership and a writ of possession, which was granted, despite Cua Lai Chu's opposition. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    414 views1 page

    Cua Lai Chu Vs Laqui

    Uploaded by

    apbuera
    Cua Lai Chu obtained a loan secured by a real estate mortgage but failed to pay back Laqui. This led to an extrajudicial foreclosure by Laqui. Cua Lai Chu attempted to annul the foreclosure through court cases. The regional trial court initially ruled in favor of Cua Lai Chu but later reversed its decision. Laqui was then the highest bidder at auction and purchased the property, giving Cua Lai Chu one year to redeem it. When redemption failed to occur within one year, Laqui filed for consolidation of ownership and a writ of possession, which was granted, despite Cua Lai Chu's opposition. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Cua Lai Chu vs Laqui

    Cua Lai Chu (Petitioner) obtained a loan of 3.2 M


    and to secure such they executed a deal of Real
    Estate Mortgage in favor of Laqui (Respondent)
    Upon failure to pay Laqui applied for extra
    judicial foreclosure and in turn Cua Lai Chu filed
    to annul said foreclosure and TRO.

    RTC Ruled in favor of petitioner granting annulment


    of foreclosure and TRO then subsequently reversed its
    own decision. Respondent emerged as the highest
    bidder and sale was executed in favor of respondent
    with 1 year redemption period.

    After 1 year redemption period respondent filed


    for consolidation and an issuance for the writ of
    possession while petitioners filed for opposition
    which was denied and granted respondents
    motion for declaration of general default and
    allowed him to present evidence ex parte.

    CA Dismissed on both procedural and substantive


    grounds since petitioners failed to indicate PTR
    number.
    ISSUE: W/N Writ of Possession was issued properly
    despite the pending case questioning the validity of
    sale on said property
    RULING: Yes. The right to possession of a purchaser at
    an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is not affected by a
    pending case questioning the validity of the
    foreclosure proceeding. Furthermore, since the
    foreclosed property was not redeemed within the
    mentioned period respondent acquired an absolute
    right as a purchaser.
    DOCTRINE: Art. 433 Actual possessions under claim of
    ownership raise disputable presumption of ownership.
    The true owner must resort to judicial process for the
    recovery of property.

    You might also like