Notes on Interpleader + Writ of Possession
Are petitioners entitled to a writ of possession after being adjudged (in the interpleader case) as the proper parties to buy the subject property, considering that a “deed of sale” has already been executed in their favor? The answer is in the negative.
[2] Extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage of real property;
[3] Judicial foreclosure of property provided that the mortgagor has possession and no third party has intervened, and;
[4] Execution sales.
Maglente v. Padilla: Here, petitioners seek the writ as a consequence of the trial court’s decision ordering the execution of a contract of sale/contract to sell in their favor. The writ does not lie in such a case. It was clear that, at that point, petitioners were not yet the owners of the property. The execution of the “deed of sale” in their favor was only preliminary to their eventual acquisition of the property.
[1] Maglente vs. Padilla, G.R. No. 148182, March 7, 2007; and
[2] Pasricha vs. Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 136409, March 14, 2008.
A writ of possession shall issue only in the following instances:
[1] Land registration proceedings;[2] Extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage of real property;
[3] Judicial foreclosure of property provided that the mortgagor has possession and no third party has intervened, and;
[4] Execution sales.
Maglente v. Padilla: Here, petitioners seek the writ as a consequence of the trial court’s decision ordering the execution of a contract of sale/contract to sell in their favor. The writ does not lie in such a case. It was clear that, at that point, petitioners were not yet the owners of the property. The execution of the “deed of sale” in their favor was only preliminary to their eventual acquisition of the property.
Pasricha v. Don Luis Dison Realty: Petitioners did not pay rentals because ostensibly they did not know to whom payment should be made. However, this did not justify their failure to pay, because if such were the case, they were not without any remedy. They should have availed of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines on the consignation of payment and of the Rules of Court on interpleader. An action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know to whom payment of rentals should be made due to conflicting claims on the property (or on the right to collect). The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against double liability but to protect him against double vexation in respect of one liability. Notably, instead of availing of the above remedies, petitioners opted to refrain from making payments.
Read more:
[1] Maglente vs. Padilla, G.R. No. 148182, March 7, 2007; and
[2] Pasricha vs. Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 136409, March 14, 2008.
