Integrated Credit and Corporate Services, Co. v. Novelita Labrador and Philippians Academy of Paranaque City

 

Integrated Credit and Corporate Services, Co. v. Novelita Labrador and Philippians Academy of Paranaque City

G.R. No. 233127

July 10, 2023

 

FACTS:

                Respondent Novelita Labrador (Labrador) was the former owner of two parcels of land with improvements situated in Paranaque City, and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 173576 and 173577 (subject properties). Labrador obtained a loan from Chinatrust Commercial Bank Corporation (Chinatrust) in the amount of P3, 440,000.00. On September 26, 2007, in order to secure the payment of her obligations, Labrador executed a real estate mortgage (REM) over the subject properties in favor of Chinatrust. The REM was registered and annotated on the TCTs of the subject properties. When Labrador defaulted in the payment of her obligations, Chinatrust applied for extrajudicial foreclosure of the REM before the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex[1]Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City, Branch 196 (RTC). The case was docketed as LRC Case No. 12-0044. After notice and publication, pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 3135, as amended, the public auction sale of the subject properties was scheduled on May 26, 2009. Labrador failed to exercise her right of legal redemption within one year from July 3, 2009 and, thus, petitioner consolidated its ownership over the subject properties by executing an Affidavit of Consolidation dated July 5, 2010. Consequently, the TCTs previously issued in the name of Labrador nwere cancelled by the Register of Deeds, and TCT Nos. 010-20100022269 and 010- 2010002227 were issued in favor of petitioner. On March 2 1, 2012, 14 petitioner filed with the RTC an Ex Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession against Labrador praying that a writ of possession be issued in its favor against Labrador, her successors or assigns or whomsoever may be in possession of the subject properties. It further prayed that a break open order be also issued to the branch sheriff to ensure the effective implementation of the writ of possession with reasonable force, if necessary.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether the CA erred when it failed to observe the jurisprudential doctrine that when the title is consolidated in the name of the purchaser at foreclosure sale, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right.

 

HELD:

                YES, the Supreme Court ruled that in the present case, it must be emphasized that petitioner was able to consolidate its title to the subject properties after Labrador failed to redeem the latter after the one-year period. The TCTs previously issued in the name of Labrador were cancelled by the Register of Deeds, and TCT Nos. 010-2010002226 and 010-2010002227 were issued in favor of petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a writ of possession based on its right of ownership.