View full case

FE H. OKABE v. ERNESTO A. SATURNINO

FACTS:

The subject property, an 81-square meter property in Barangay San Antonio, Makati City, was originally covered by TCT No. 175741 under the name of Ernesto A. Saturnino's wife. In 1994, Saturnino and his wife obtained a loan from PNB and used the property as collateral. Due to their failure to settle the loan, PNB foreclosed the mortgage in 1999 and inscribed the Certificate of Sale on TCT No. 175741. The property was not redeemed, and ownership was consolidated by PNB in 2006. In 2008, PNB sold the property to petitioner Fe H. Okabe, who had a new TCT issued in her name. Okabe then filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession with the RTC of Makati City. The RTC denied respondent's opposition, and respondent filed a motion for clarification and reconsideration, which were also denied by the RTC. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA to question the RTC's orders. The CA granted the petition, vacated the RTC's orders, and permanently enjoined petitioner from proceeding with the writ of possession. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that her possession of the property as the registered owner should not be disturbed.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether an ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was the proper remedy for the petitioner to obtain possession of the subject property.

  2. Whether the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals should be reversed and set aside.

RULING:

  1. No, an ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was not the proper remedy for the petitioner to obtain possession of the subject property. The Court held that under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, the purchaser or mortgagee who is also the purchaser in the foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period, upon an ex-parte motion and after furnishing a bond. However, this remedy is only available if the purchaser bought the property within the redemption period. In this case, the petitioner purchased the property long after the expiration of the redemption period, so she does not fall under the circumstances of the law. Therefore, it is the purchaser during the foreclosure sale who can file the ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession during the redemption period.

  2. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are reversed and set aside.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is summary and ministerial in nature. It is merely an incident in the transfer of title. (GC Dalton Industries, Inc. v. Equitable PCI Bank)

  • The purchaser in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property if it is not redeemed within one year after the registration of the sale. The purchaser is entitled to possession of the property and can demand it at any time after consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title. The purchaser can demand possession even during the redemption period, but must post a bond in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135. (Spouses Nicasio Marquez and Anita Marquez v. Spouses Carlito Alindog and Carmen Alindog)

  • An ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession is not the appropriate remedy for a purchaser who bought the property after the redemption period has expired. The remedy is available only for those who bought the property within the redemption period. (Spouses Nicasio Marquez and Anita Marquez v. Spouses Carlito Alindog and Carmen Alindog)

  • The issuance of a writ of possession is ministerial and non-adversarial in cases where the purchaser is the mortgagee or a third party who acquired the property during the redemption period.

  • Section 6 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, provides that the debtor, his successor-in-interest, or any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of the debtor, or any person having a lien on the property subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold, may redeem the property within one year from the date of the sale.

  • Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights, title, interest, and claim of the judgment debtor to the property. The possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last redemptioner unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor.

No legal principles or doctrines can be deduced from this excerpt as it only states the ruling of the court without providing any factual background or legal arguments.