FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246151. July 3, 2019.]
- JURIS TITLE LEOPITO N. MONTEJO, petitioner, vs.WESTRADE LENDING INVESTOR/WESTIERRA, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 3, 2019which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 246151 (Leopito N. Montejo v. Westrade Lending Investor/Westierra, Inc.). — After review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its ruling in CA-G.R. CV No. 109277. The CA is correct in holding that respondent is entitled to the writ of possession because it became the absolute owner of the subject property when petitioner or any other party failed to redeem the property during the period of one year after the registration of sale. A writ of possession may be issued after consolidation of ownership of the property in the name of the purchaser. As such, he is entitled to the possession of the property and can demand it any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title. Upon proper application and proof of title, it became the ministerial duty of the trial court to issue the writ of possession in favor of respondent under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, otherwise known as "An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate Mortgages," as amended by Act No. 4118, otherwise known as "An Act to Amend Numbered Thirty-One Hundred and Thirty-Five, entitled An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real Estate Mortgages." 1 Indeed, any question regarding the regularity and validity of the mortgage or foreclosure of the property cannot be raised as a justification for opposing the petition for the issuance of the writ of possession. The said issues may be raised and determined only after the issuance of the writ of possession. Until the foreclosure sale of the property in question is annulled by a court of competent jurisdiction, the issuance of a writ of possession remains the ministerial duty of the trial court. The same is true with its implementation; otherwise, it runs contrary to the mandate of Act No. 3135 to vest possession in the purchaser immediately. 2
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated April 20, 2018 and Resolution dated February 22, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 109277 are hereby AFFIRMED.
The Cash Collection and Disbursement Division is hereby DIRECTED to RETURN to the petitioner the excess payment for the legal fees in the amount of P470.00 under O.R. No. 0236376-SC-EP dated April 15, 2019. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."Gesmundo, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Philippine National Bank v. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 153951, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 287.
2.Fortaleza v. Lapitan, G.R. No. 178288, August 15, 2012, 678 SCRA 469, 485.