41. CUA LAI CHU vs HOW THE CASE STARTED YES.

TED YES. THE WRIT OF POSSESSION WAS PROPERLY ISSUED DESPITE THE
HONORABLE LAQUI - Petitioners obtained a loan in the total amount of PENDENCY OF THE CASE.
PHP3,200,000.00 from private respondent Philippine Bank - The right to possession of a purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure
ART 433: Actual of Communication. sale is not affected by a pending case questioning the validity of the
possession under - To secure the loan, petitioners executed in favor of private foreclosure proceeding. The latter is not a bar to the former. Even
claim of ownership respondent a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the pending such latter proceeding, the purchaser at a foreclosure sale is
raises disputable property of petitioner spouses covered by TCT No. 22990. entitled to the possession of the foreclosed property.
presumption of - Petitioners weren’t able to pay the fill amount of the
ownership. The true outstanding loan upon demand leading the private - In Navarra v. Court of Appeals, the purchaser at an extrajudicial
owner must resort to respondent to apply for the extrajudicial foreclosure (EJF) of foreclosure sale applied for a writ of possession after the lapse of the
judicial process for the the real estate mortgage. one-year redemption period. The Court ruled that the purchaser at
recovery of the - Petitioners upon receipt of notice of the extrajudicial an extrajudicial foreclosure sale has a right to the possession of the
property. (n) foreclosure filed a petition to annul the extrajudicial property even during the one-year redemption period provided the
foreclosure sale with a prayer for TRO. purchaser files an indemnity bond. After the lapse of the said period
- The petition for annulment was filed in the RTC of QC. with no redemption having been made, that right becomes absolute
- TRO was granted that’s why the EJF did not push through. and may be demanded by the purchaser even without the posting of
- TRO was subsequently lifted. EJF pushed through and a bond. Possession may then be obtained under a writ which may be
private respondent emerged as the highest bidder. applied for ex parte pursuant to Section 7 of Act No. 3135, 24 as
- A certificate of sale was executed in favor of private amended by Act No. 4118, 25 thus:
respondent.
- After the lapse of the one year redemption period, private SEC. 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may
respondent was issued the TCT of the property. petition the Court of First Instance of the province or place where the
- On August 18, 2004: private respondent applied for the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof
during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to
issuance of a writ of possession of the foreclosed property.
the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the
- Petitioners filed an opposition.
debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the
- Trial Court granted private respondent’s motion for a mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act. Such
declaration of general default and allowed private petition shall be made under oath and led in form of an ex parte
respondent to present evidence ex parte. motion . . . and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a
- Trial Court denied petitioner’s notice of appeal. writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of the province in which
the property is situated, who shall execute said order immediately.
ISSUE: Whether the writ of possession was properly issued despite
the pendency of a case questioning the validity of the extrajudicial - In the present case, the certificate of sale of the foreclosed property
foreclosure sale? was annotated on TCT No. 22990 on 7 June 2002. The redemption
period thus lapsed on 7 June 2003, one year from the registration of
PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS: the sale. When private respondent applied for the issuance of a writ
- Contend they were denied due process of law when they of possession on 18 August 2004, the redemption period had long
were declared in default despite the fact that they filed their lapsed. Since the foreclosed property was not redeemed within
opposition to private respondent’s application for the writ of one year from the registration of the extrajudicial foreclosure
possession. sale, private respondent had acquired an absolute right, as
- Will deprive them not only of the use and possession of their purchaser, to the writ of possession.
property, but also of its ownership.
- Petitioners cite Bustos v. Court of Appeals and Vda. De - When private respondent applied for the issuance of a writ of
Legaspi v. Avendaño in asserting that physical possession of possession, it presented a new transfer certificate of title issued in its
the property should not be disturbed pending the nal name dated 8 July 2003. The right of private respondent to the
 determination of the more substantial issue of ownership. possession of the property was thus founded on its right of
ownership. As the purchaser of the property at the foreclosure sale,
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS: in whose name title over the property was already issued, the right
- Maintains that the application for the issuance of a writ of of private respondent over the property had become absolute,
possession in a foreclosure proceeding is ex parte in nature. vesting in it the corollary right of possession.
Petitioner’s right to due process was not violated.