Okabe v. Saturnino

OKABE vs SATURNINO [G.R. No.
196040; August 26, 2014]

AUTHOR: Alfonso Dimla
TOPIC: Real Estate Mortgage
PONENTE: Leonen, J.
DOCTRINE: The purchaser or the 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.
FACTS:
 The subject of the controversy is an eighty-one (81)square meter property which was initially covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title under the name of the wife of respondent Ernesto A. Saturnino.
 Sometime in 1994, the couple obtained a loan with the Philippine National Bank (PNB), which was secured by
the subject property. Because of the couple’s failure to settle their loan obligation with the bank, PNB extrajudicially
foreclosed the mortgage.
 On August 24, 1999, the Certificate of Sale was inscribed on TCT No. 175741. Considering that the property was not
redeemed by respondent during the redemption period, consolidation of ownership was inscribed on October 13, 2006
and a new TCT was issued in favor of PNB.
 Without taking possession of the subject property, PNB sold the land to petitioner Fe H. Okabe on June 17, 2008.
TCT No. 225265 was later issued in petitioner’s name on August 13, 2008.
 On November 27, 2008, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City an Ex-Parte Petition for
Issuance of Writ of Possession over the subject property.
 RTC RULING: On April 30 2009, the RTC issued an Order denying respondent’s Opposition with Motion to Dismiss
for lack of merit. After respondent filed an MR, it denied the same, and further ruled that among other things, the right
of the petitioner to be placed in absolute possession of the subject property was a consequence of her right of ownership
and that petitioner cannot be deprived of said possession being now the registered owner of the property.
 CA RULING: The CA reversed RTC’s decision and opined, among other things, that although it may be true that by
virtue of the contract of sale, petitioner obtained the same rights of a purchaser-owner and which rights she derived
from erstwhile mortgagee turned owner PNB, this does not mean that the right to file an ex-parte motion for a writ of
possession under Act 3135 had also been transferred to the petitioner. Such a special right is granted only to purchasers
in a sale made under the provisions of Act 3135.
ISSUE/S & RATIO: Whether or not an ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was the proper remedy of the
petitioner in obtaining possession of the subject property.
RULING: No. Petitioner does not fall under the circumstances of the aforequoted case and the provisions of Section 7 of Act
No. 3135, as amended, since she bought the property long after the expiration of the redemption period.
 Thus, it is PNB, if it was the purchaser in the foreclosure sale, or the purchaser during the foreclosure sale, who can file
the ex-parte petition for the issuance of writ of possession during the redemption period,
 It is thus settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not
redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale. As such, he is entitled to the possession of the
said property and can demand it at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to
him of a new transfer certificate of title.
 From the foregoing, upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or redemptioner shall besubstituted to
and acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of the judgment debtor to the property, and its possession shall be
given to the purchaser or last redemptioner unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the
judgment debtor. In which case, the issuance of the writ of possession ceases to be ex-parte and non-adversarial.
 Thus, where the property levied upon on execution is occupied by a party other than a judgment debtor, the procedure
is for the court to conduct a hearing to determine the nature of said possession, i.e., whether or not he is in possession
of the subject property under a claim adverse to that of the judgment debtor.
 Note that f the purchaser is a third party who acquired the property after the redemption period, a hearing must be
conducted to determine whether possession over the subject property is still with the mortgagor or is already in the
possession of a third party holding the same adversely to the defaulting debtor or mortgagor.
 If the property is in the possession of the mortgagor, a writ of possession could thus be issued. Otherwise, the remedy
of a writ of possession is no longer available to such purchaser, but he can wrest possession over the property through
an ordinary action of ejectment.
To be sure, immediately requiring the subsequent purchaser to file a separate case of ejectment instead of a petition for
the issuance of a writ of possession, albeit not ex-parte, will only prolong the proceedings and unduly deny the subsequent
purchaser of possession of the property which he already bought.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 24, 2010 and
Resolution dated March 9, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 110029 are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.

Okabe v. Saturnino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Okabe v. Saturnino

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Okabe v. Saturnino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OKABE vs SATURNINO [G.R. No.

196040; August 26, 2014]

You might also like