Rule 68 No. 4 Edralin Vs PVB

SPOUSES EDRALIN vs PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK
G.R. No. 168523

DATE: March 9, 2011
DOCTRINE: During the period of redemption, the mortgagee is entitled to a writ of possession
upon depositing the approved bond. When the redemption period expires without the mortgagor
exercising his right of redemption, the mortgagor is deemed to have lost all interest over the
foreclosed property, and the purchaser acquires absolute ownership of the property.
PETITIONERS: Spouses FERNANDO and ANGELINA EDRALIN
RESPONDENT: PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK
FACTS: On February 5, 1976, Veterans Bank granted petitioner spouses Fernando and Angelina
Edralin (Edralins) a loan in the amount of P270,000.00. As security thereof, petitioners executed a
Real Estate Mortgage (REM)6 in favor of Veterans Bank over a real property situated in the
Municipality of Paraaque and registered in the name of petitioner Fernando Edralin which was
duly annotated.
The Edralins failed to pay their obligation to Veterans Bank so the latter filed a Petition for
Extrajudicial Foreclosure of the REM with the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff
of Rizal. It was sold in a public auction and Veterans Bank was the highest bidder and a Certificate
of Sale was issued and registered with the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Rizal and annotated
at the back of its TCT. Edralin failed redeem the property during the one year period so the bank
acquired absolute ownership on January 19, 1994. The Edralin's TCT was cancelled and a new one
under the name of Veterans Bank replaced it.
Thus, on May 24, 1996, Veterans Bank filed an Ex-Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
Possession but was dismissed for Veterans Banks failure to prosecute. On July 29, 2003, Veterans
Bank again filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession. The Edralins moved to
dismiss the petition on the ground that the dismissal of the case due to res judicata.
RTC Ruling: It denied the motion to dismiss as there was no res judicata on the petition for issuance
of a writ of possession. However, it dismissed the case because under paragraph (d) of the REM, the
Veterans Bank agreed to take possession of the Edralins property without any judicial intervention.
The court held that granting the writ of possession to the Veterans Bank will violate the contractual
agreement of the parties. Furthermore, the trial court held that, assuming the contract allowed for
the issuance of a writ of possession, Veterans Banks right to seek possession had already
prescribed. Without citing authority and adequate explanation, the court held that Veterans Bank had
only 10 years from February 24, 1983 to seek possession of the property.
This prompted Veterans Bank to file a Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for Issuance of a
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction before the CA.
CA's Ruling: The appellate court ruled in favor of Veterans Bank. It held that the contractual
provision in paragraph (d) to immediately take possession of the mortgaged property without need
of judicial intervention is distinct from the right to avail of extrajudicial foreclosure under Section 7
of Act No. 3135, which was expressly reserved by Veterans Bank in paragraph (c) of the REM.
Having availed itself of the remedy of extrajudicial foreclosure, Veterans Bank, as the highest
bidder, has the right to a writ of possession. This right may be availed of any time after the buyer
consolidates ownership. In fact, the issuance of the writ of possession is a ministerial function, the
right to which cannot be enjoined or stayed, even by an action for annulment of the mortgage or the
foreclosure sale itself.
ISSUE: Whether or not the consolidation of ownership of the extrajudicially foreclosed property
through a Deed of Sale is in accordance with law.
HELD: YES. Petitioner's contention that there was pactum commissorium is untenable. Pactum
commissorium is "a stipulation empowering the creditor to appropriate the thing given as guaranty
for the fulfillment of the obligation in the event the obligor fails to live up to his undertakings,
without further formality, such as foreclosure proceedings, and a public sale." The elements of
pactum commissorium, which enable the mortgagee to acquire ownership of the mortgaged
property without the need of any foreclosure proceedings, are: (1) there should be a property
mortgaged by way of security for the payment of the principal obligation, and (2) there should be a
stipulation for automatic appropriation by the creditor of the thing mortgaged in case of nonpayment of the principal obligation within the stipulated period."
The second element is missing to characterize the Deed of Sale as a form of pactum commissorium.
Veterans Bank did not, upon the petitioners default, automatically acquire or appropriate the
mortgaged property for itself. On the contrary, the Veterans Bank resorted to extrajudicial
foreclosure and was issued a Certificate of Sale by the sheriff as proof of its purchase of the subject
property during the foreclosure sale. That Veterans Bank went through all the stages of extrajudicial
foreclosure indicates that there was no pactum commissorium.
Moreover, the right to a writ of possession does not prescribe. Hence, with the rule that the
expiration of the 1-year redemption period forecloses the obligors right to redeem and that the sale
thereby becomes absolute, the issuance thereafter of a final deed of sale is at best a mere formality
and mere confirmation of the title that is already vested in the purchaser.
In the case at bar, with the consolidated title, the bank becomes entitled to a writ of possession and
the trial court has the ministerial duty to issue such writ of possession. Thus, "the remedy of
mandamus lies to compel the performance of [this] ministerial duty."
Final Judgment: CA's decision AFFIRMED.
N.B. A LOT OF ISSUES WERE TACKLED HERE. I only got for Rule 68 but it also tackled
Mandamus of Rule 65 which I didn't discuss.

Rule 68 No. 4 Edralin Vs PVB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 68 No. 4 Edralin Vs PVB

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

Rule 68 No. 4 Edralin Vs PVB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPOUSES EDRALIN vs PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK

G.R. No. 168523

You might also like