SPOUSES EDUARDO VACA and MA. LUISITA PILAR, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ASSOCIATED BANK.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 109672
- Promulgated: 1994-07-14
- Ponente: Mendoza, J.
Doctrine
Issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure, after the period of redemption, is a ministerial function of the court once title has consolidated in the mortgagee.
Generally, questions regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure are not legal grounds to refuse issuance of a writ of possession; equitable exceptions may apply only under peculiar circumstances.
Facts
Petitioners are Spouses Eduardo Vaca and Ma. Luisita Pilar; respondents are the Court of Appeals and Associated Bank (private respondent).
There was an extrajudicial foreclosure sale and registration; petitioners contend a separate civil suit questioning the mortgage's validity was pending.
Private respondent sought issuance of a writ of possession after the one-year period of redemption had lapsed.
Issues
Whether the pendency of a separate civil suit questioning the validity of the mortgage bars issuance of a writ of possession to the purchaser after foreclosure and expiration of the redemption period.
Ruling
No — the pendency of a separate suit does not bar issuance of the writ of possession because issuance is ministerial once title has consolidated in the mortgagee; petition for review denied and prior resolution reconsidered and recalled.
Keywords
G.R. No. 109672, petition for review on certiorari, certiorari and mandamus, writ of possession, extrajudicially foreclosed, mortgage obligation, one-year period to redeem, TCT No. 254504, TCT No. 52593, annulment of the mortgage and its foreclosure, ministerial duty of the court, prejudicial question, Vda. de Jacob v. Court of Appeals, Navarra v. Court of Appeals, validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure, Cometa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Barican v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Act No. 3135, sec. 7, extrajudicial foreclosure sale, possession