BPI v. Golden Power (G.R. No. 176019; January 12, 2011)

CASE DIGEST: BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC. Petitioner vs. GOLDEN POWER DIESEL SALES CENTER, INC. and RENATO C. TAN Respondents. (G.R. No. 176019; January 12, 2011).

FACTS: CEDEC entered into a loan with BPI and secured the obligation with a real estate mortgage. CEDEC was unable to pay for the loan, which lead to BPI to foreclose extrajudicially. After the lapse of the redemption period, BPI was able to obtain title over the properties. However, BPI was unable to obtain possession over the property due to CEDEC continued refusal to vacate. BPI sought a writ of possession from the courts, which the court granted. When BPI sought execution of the writ, herein respondent Golden Power opposed the execution. Golden Power purchased the property in question from CEDEC, with an assumption of mortgage. Golden Power claims that it is a third party possessor, thus a writ of execution may not be issued ex parte. The court then ordered a suspension of the execution of the writ. BPI manifested opposition, but to no avail. BPI sought certiorari from the Court of Appeals but was also denied.

ISSUE: Is Golden Power a possessor with an adverse claim against CEDEC?

HELD: A writ of possession issues as a matter of right to the winning bidder in a foreclosure sale when the period of redemption has lapsed. This is because possession is one of the rights that spring from ownership. The exception to this rule is when there is a possessor whose claim is adverse to the judgment obligor. In this case, Golden Power claims to be such. However, pursuant to the sale it entered into with CEDEC, Golden Power merely stepped into the shoes of CEDEC. It does not possess a claim adverse to CEDEC, as Golden Power very right stems from the transfer by CEDEC. Hence, the issuance of the writ of possession is proper.

Popular Posts