Purchaser's possession of foreclosed property even during redemption period

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the purchaser can demand possession of the property even during the redemption period for as long as he files an ex parte motion under oath and post a bond in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended.[1] Upon filing of the motion and the approval of the bond, the law also directs the court in express terms to issue the order for a writ of possession.

When the redemption period has expired and title over the property has been consolidated in the purchaser’s name, a writ of possession can be demanded as a matter of right. The writ of possession shall be issued as a matter of course even without the filing and approval of a bond after consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new TCT in the name of the purchaser. As explained in Edralin v. Philippine Veterans Bank,[2] the duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession in these instances is also ministerial, and the court may not exercise discretion or judgment."Consequently, the purchaser, who has a right to possession after the expiration of the redemption period, becomes the absolute owner of the property when no redemption is made. In this regard, the bond is no longer needed. The purchaser can demand possession at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new TCT. After consolidation of title in the purchaser’s name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, the purchaser’s right to possession ripens into the absolute right of a confirmed owner. At that point, the issuance of a writ of possession, upon proper application and proof of title becomes merely a ministerial function. Effectively, the court cannot exercise its discretion."[3]

In the case of Philippine Bank of Communications v. Yeung[5], it was not disputed that the respondent failed to exercise her right of redemption within one year from the time of the registration of the sale. There was also no question that the property’s title had already been transferred to the petitioner. As the actual owner of the property, it is not only necessary, but also just, to allow the petitioner to take possession of the property it owns. It is illogical if the person already owning the property will be barred from possessing it, in the absence of compelling and legitimate reasons to deny him possession.[4] Thus, the Court allowed the issuance of a writ of possession in this case.[6]

[1] BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Golden Power Diesel Sales Center, Inc., G.R. No. 176019, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 405, 415.

[2] G.R. No. 168523, March 9, 2011, 645 SCRA 75, 86.

[3] Id. at 85-86.

[4] Id. at 90.

[5] G.R. No. 179691, December 04, 2013.

[6] G.R. No. 179691, December 04, 2013.

Popular Posts