Secs. 7, 8 of Act No. 3135; consolidated ownership; redemption period

When the writ of possession in its issued in its favor, a bank already consolidates its ownership over the properties, and the redemption period already lapses. This was clarified in 680 Home Appliances, Inc. v. Court of Appeals. It was held by the Supreme Court that Act No. 3135 finds no application after the lapse of redemption period.

Act No. 3135 governs only the manner of the sale and redemption of the mortgaged real property in an extrajudicial foreclosure; proceedings beyond these, i.e., upon the lapse of the redemption period and the consolidation of the purchaser's title, are no longer within its scope.

The writ of possession that the debtor may petition to set aside under Section 8 of Act No. 3135 undoubtedly refers to one issued pursuant to Section 7 of the same law "during the redemption period." The reference to the Section 7 proceeding underscores the position that the remedy provided in Section 8 is available only against a writ of possession during the redemption period.

Further showing Sections 7 and 8's close relation is the bond required to be filed by the purchaser in Section 7 that the debtor may proceed against in Section 8. Section 7 states that the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession should be accompanied by a bond which, under Section 8, shall "indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of Act No. 3135.If a bond is no longer required to support a writ of possession issued after the consolidation of the purchaser's ownership, then no relief can be extended to the debtor under Section 8 of Act No. 3135.

ALSO READ THIS: G.R. No. 184045. January 22, 2014 - Project Jurisprudence.


[1] 680 Home Appliances, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 206599, September 29, 2014, 737 SCRA 127, 141.

[2] Roger Cabuhat v. Development Bank of the Philippines.G.K. No. 203924, June 29, 2016.

[3] Eristingcol v. Court of Appeals, 601 Phil. 136, 152 (2009), as cited in Medical Plaza Makati Condominium Corp. v. Cullen, 720 Phil. 732, 741 (2013).

Popular Posts