Javate v. Spouses Tiotuico G.R. No. 187606 March 9, 2015 Doctrine

Javate v.
Spouses Tiotuico Court, applying the rules on execution sale in a suppletory manner,
G.R. No. 187606 sustained the issuance of the said writ and held as follows:
March 9, 2015 The remedy of a writ of possession, a remedy that is available
to the mortgagee-purchaser to acquire possession of the
Doctrine foreclosed property from the mortgagor, is made available to a
 The remedy of a writ of possession, a remedy that is available to the subsequent purchaser, but only after hearing and after
mortgagee-purchaser to acquire possession of the foreclosed determining that the subject property is still in the possession of
property from the mortgagor, is made available to a subsequent the mortgagor.
purchaser, but only after hearing and after determining that the  In the instant case, while respondents' petition for the issuance of a
subject property is still in the possession of the mortgagor. writ of possession was filed ex-parte, a “hearing” was, nonetheless,
Facts: conducted when the RTC gave petitioner her day in court by giving
 Petitioner was the owner of a parcel of land which she mortgaged to her the opportunity to file various pleadings to oppose respondent's
Guagua Rural Bank (Bank) as security for a loan. Petitioner failed to petition. “To be heard” does not mean verbal argumentation alone
pay and the Bank foreclosed the mortgage. The lot was sold at public inasmuch as one may be heard just as effectively through written
auction where the Bank was the highest bidder. After the one-year explanations, submissions or pleadings.
redemption period has expired without petitioner having redeemed  Indeed, the Court's pronouncement in Okabe regarding a
the disputed property, the Bank consolidated its ownership over the subsequent purchaser's right to a writ of possession finds support in
same. Subsequently, herein respondent spouses bought the subject a previous ruling of this Court. In Roxas v. Buan, this Court has held
lot from the Bank and a new title was issued in their name. that a writ of possession obtained by a mortgagee-purchaser in a
 On December 9, 2004, respondent spouses filed a Petition for the foreclosure sale, after the expiration of the redemption period, may
Issuance of a Writ of Possession with the RTC. The RTC granted the be enforced against the successor-in-interest of the mortgagor.
petition but the petitioners appealed all the way to the Supreme Conversely, this Court finds logic in ruling that the successor-in-
Court. The SC denied the appeal and the subsequent MR. interest of the mortgagee-purchaser in a foreclosure sale, who
Thereafter, the SC issued an Entry of Judgment, stating that the already obtained title over the foreclosed property, may be issued a
decision had become final and executor on October 8, 2009. writ of possession as against the mortgagor who remains in
 Meanwhile, on April 1, 2008, respondent spouses filed with the RTC possession of the subject property.
a motion to implement the Writ of Possession which was earlier  It may not be amiss to reiterate the Court's assertion in Okabe that
issued by the said court. The RTC granted the motion and denied to immediately require the subsequent purchaser to file a separate
the petitioner’s subsequent appeal. Petitioner again appeals all the case of ejectment instead of a petition for the issuance of a writ of
way to the SC. possession will only prolong the proceedings and unduly deny the
Issue/s: subsequent purchaser of possession of the property which he
1. Whether or not the respondents are entitled, as a matter of right, to already bought, as his right to such possession is simply a natural
the issuance of a writ of possession when they merely bought the and necessary incident of his right as an absolute owner of
subject property through private transaction and NOT through land the property.
registration proceedings, judicial foreclosure and extrajudicial
foreclosure?
Held:
Denied
Ratio:
 Petitioner is correct in saying that respondents must resort to “judicial
process” in order for them to obtain possession of the disputed lot.
However, petitioner is wrong in positing that the only appropriate
judicial actions or proceedings that should have been taken by
respondents are either ejectment or a reivindicatory suit. On the
other hand, respondents were correct in asking the court to issue a
writ of possession.
 In the recent case of Okabe v. Saturnino, the RTC issued a writ of
possession to enable a third-party purchaser to obtain possession of
the subject property which was extrajudicially foreclosed. This

Javate v. Spouses Tiotuico G.R. No. 187606 March 9, 2015 Doctrine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Javate v. Spouses Tiotuico G.R. No. 187606 March 9, 2015 Doctrine

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Javate v. Spouses Tiotuico G.R. No. 187606 March 9, 2015 Doctrine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Javate v.

You might also like