SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238011. April 3, 2019.]
SPOUSES ROBERT ILAGA AND JUDY ILAGA, LEVI MAR ILAGA, AND GRACE MAY ILAGA RARUGAL, petitioners, vs.BDO UNIBANK, INC. (FORMERLY EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC.), respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238011 — Spouses Robert Ilaga and Judy Ilaga, Levi Mar Ilaga, and Grace May Ilaga Rarugal versus BDO Unibank, Inc. (formerly Equitable PCI Bank, Inc.)
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, including the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated January 31, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated February 8, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 137675, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition and AFFIRM the ruling of the CA since the petitioners failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
In the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages under Act No. 3135 (as amended), the issuance of a writ of possession is ministerial upon the court after the foreclosure sale and during the redemption period when the court may issue the order for a writ of possession upon the mere filing of an ex parte motion and the approval of the corresponding bond. 3 The writ of possession also issues as a matter of course, without need of a bond or of a separate and independent action, after the lapse of the period of redemption, and after the consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in the purchaser's name. 4
There are, however, exceptions to the rule. The court's obligation to issue an ex parte writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale ceases to be ministerial when there is a third party in possession of the property claiming a right adverse to that of the judgment debtor/mortgagor. 5 The exception provided under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court contemplates a situation in which a third party holds the property by adverse title or right, such as that of a co-owner, tenant or usufructuary, who possesses the property in his own right, and is not merely the successor or transferee of the right of possession of another co-owner or the owner of the property. 6
Considering the foregoing, the Court agrees with the CA that the case at bar does not fall among the exceptions to the ministerial nature of the issuance of a writ of possession. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 39-53. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting concurring.
2.Id. at 56-57.
3.Cabling v. Lumapas, 736 Phil. 582, 588 (2014).
4.Id. at 588.
5.Id. at 589.
6.Id.