Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    Civpro Case#5 Kho Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Leica Jayme
    The spouses Kho took out a loan from Banco Filipino, securing it with a mortgage on a parcel of land. After they defaulted on payments, Banco Filipino foreclosed on the property. The bank was the highest bidder at auction and obtained a certificate of sale, giving the Kho's one year to redeem the property. Just before the redemption period ended, the Kho's filed a case to annul the foreclosure. They obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the bank from obtaining a writ of possession. The Court of Appeals later reversed orders denying the bank's motion to lift the injunction. The Supreme Court ruled that the purchaser at a foreclosure sale can obtain a writ of possession even before the

    Copyright:

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

    Civpro Case#5 Kho Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Leica Jayme
    85 views1 page
    The spouses Kho took out a loan from Banco Filipino, securing it with a mortgage on a parcel of land. After they defaulted on payments, Banco Filipino foreclosed on the property. The bank was the highest bidder at auction and obtained a certificate of sale, giving the Kho's one year to redeem the property. Just before the redemption period ended, the Kho's filed a case to annul the foreclosure. They obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the bank from obtaining a writ of possession. The Court of Appeals later reversed orders denying the bank's motion to lift the injunction. The Supreme Court ruled that the purchaser at a foreclosure sale can obtain a writ of possession even before the

    Original Title

    civpro case#5 Kho vs CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The spouses Kho took out a loan from Banco Filipino, securing it with a mortgage on a parcel of land. After they defaulted on payments, Banco Filipino foreclosed on the property. The bank was the highest bidder at auction and obtained a certificate of sale, giving the Kho's one year to redeem the property. Just before the redemption period ended, the Kho's filed a case to annul the foreclosure. They obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the bank from obtaining a writ of possession. The Court of Appeals later reversed orders denying the bank's motion to lift the injunction. The Supreme Court ruled that the purchaser at a foreclosure sale can obtain a writ of possession even before the

    Copyright:

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

    Civpro Case#5 Kho Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Leica Jayme
    The spouses Kho took out a loan from Banco Filipino, securing it with a mortgage on a parcel of land. After they defaulted on payments, Banco Filipino foreclosed on the property. The bank was the highest bidder at auction and obtained a certificate of sale, giving the Kho's one year to redeem the property. Just before the redemption period ended, the Kho's filed a case to annul the foreclosure. They obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the bank from obtaining a writ of possession. The Court of Appeals later reversed orders denying the bank's motion to lift the injunction. The Supreme Court ruled that the purchaser at a foreclosure sale can obtain a writ of possession even before the

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    83498 October 22, 1991 (denying respondent bank's motion for reconsideration) were all
    SPS. MIGUEL S. KHO and JUANITA KHO, petitioners, vs. COURT reversed by respondent Court in its decision dated February 17,
    OF APPEALS and BANCO FILIPINO, respondents. 1988.

    Facts: Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration on February


    29, 1988 which was denied thru a Court of Appeals resolution.
    On January 31, 1978, the spouses Kho (private respondents
    herein) constituted in favor of herein petitioner Banco Filipino a
    real estate mortgage over a parcel of land registered in the name Issue:
    of plaintiff Miguel Kho to guarantee a loan granted them by
    petitioner bank. The real estate mortgage underwent Whether or not the purchaser at a foreclosure sale could validly
    amendments,until it was made to secure private respondents' obtain possession of the forclosed property prior to the expiration
    obligation with the bank in the total amount of TWO MILLION of the redemption period.
    EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTY NINE THOUSAND PESOS (P2,869,000)
    Philippine Currency, payable on or before September 29, 1995.
    Ruling:
    After managing to pay the sum of P688,060.00, the Kho spouses
    defaulted in the payment of some amortizations. Hence, on May Yes, the purchaser can obtain possession by writ of possession
    13, 1982, Banco Filipino extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. even prior to the expiration of the redemprion period.
    As the sole and highest bidder in the auction sale, the petitioner
    bank purchased the mortgaged property for the sum of The law and jurisprudence are clear that both during and after the
    P4,153,865.47 covering the plaintiff's obligations, interests, period of redemption, the purchaser at the foreclosure sale is
    penalties and attorney's fees as agreed in the mortgage contract. entitled as of right to a writ of possession, regardless of whether
    The certificate of sale was then duly registered on June 17, 1982. or not there is a pending suit for annulment of the mortgage or
    the foreclosure itself (without prejudice of course to the eventual
    Counting one year from June 17, 1982, the petitioners had until outcome of said case). Hence, an injunction to prohibit the
    June 17, 1983, within which to redeem the property. In the issuance of the writ of possession is entirely out of place (See Act
    meantime, the foreclosed property was leased out to third parties 3135)
    and the rentals (fruits thereof) were remitted monthly by
    petitioners to respondent bank. Then just about ten (10) days WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
    before the end of the redemption period, on June 7, 1983 to be
    exact, petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu
    (raffled off to Branch IX) a complaint for: "Annulment of Specific
    Performance with Preliminary Injunction, etc." against Banco
    Filipino, which action was actually for the annulment of the
    extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage. The verified complaint of
    petitioners specifically prayed for:

    . . . the Honorable Court before judgment and after heaving to


    issue a writ of preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining the
    defendants jointly and severally from obtaining a writ of
    possession or a final deed of conveyance over plaintiffs' land and
    restrain the defendants from registering the same; as well as
    restraining and enjoining the defendants from collecting any
    rentals of the properties of the plaintiffs. Judge Candido C.
    Aguinaldo of Branch IX, Regional Trial Court, Cebu, granted the
    prayer of petitioners to which respondent bank strongly objected
    and in its Urgent Motion to Lift Injunction prayed

    In the meantime, present counsel of record for respondent bank


    entered his appearance. Judge Aguinaldo claimed some
    relationship with him. Hence, the reraffle of the case to another
    sala, Branch XIV presided over by Judge Juan Y. Reyes. the
    petitioners finally submitted their Memorandum in support of
    their opposition to the respondent bank's aforestated Motion to
    Lift Injunction. On April 30, 1985, respondent bank's motion was
    denied and a motion for reconsideration was thereafter
    immediately filed. While the motion for reconsideration was
    pending, Judge Reyes retired and again there was a reraffle of the
    case which resulted in its being assigned to Judge Meinrado P.
    Paredes, of RTC XIII who denied on April 29, 1987, respondent
    bank's aforestated motion for reconsideration.

    Finally the three (3) above mentioned orders of November 4,


    1983 (granting writ of injunction); April 30, 1985 (denying
    respondent bank's motion to lift injunction), and April 29, 1987

    You might also like