Jacqueline Uy v. 3tops De Philippines Estate Corporation

 

Jacqueline Uy v. 3tops De Philippines Estate Corporation

G.R. No. 248140

January 16, 2023

 

FACTS:

                Respondent averred that it is the registered owner of two parcels of land. Respondent alleged that the subject properties were previously owned by Lucy S. Uy, who obtained a loan from RCBC in 1995 and as a security, mortgaged the said properties in favor of RCBC. In 2007, RCBC assigned all its rights and interests in the mortgage agreement to Star Two, Inc. (Star Two). When Lucy defaulted in her obligation, Star Two initiated the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties. Upon failure by Lucy to redeem the properties, Star Two consolidated the ownership of the same in its name, under TCT Nos. 092-2013003691 and 092-2013003692. On January 8, 2014, Star Two sold the properties to respondent in the amount of PHP 4,700,000.00, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Respondent caused the titling of the subject properties in its name, including the commercial building situated thereon. Respondent averred that since its acquisition of the properties in 2014, it has paid the corresponding taxes on the lots and the commercial building. As proof, respondent attached the official receipts and certification from the City Treasurer evidencing payment of property taxes for previous years up to 2018.

On May 10, 2018, a Notice to Vacate was issued to Lucy and all adverse occupants. Petitioner Jacqueline S. Uy, in the interest of her mother, Lucy, and as the then occupant of the subject properties, filed an Urgent Motion to Admit Herein Opposition (With Motion for the Honorable Court to reconsider its Order dated April 24, 2018, to Quash the Petitioner's [Ex Parte] Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession, and to Hold in Abeyance the Implementation of the Writ of Possession dated May 08, 2018 and the Notice to Vacate dated May 10, 2018) dated May 25, 2018 (hereafter, Urgent Motion). Petitioner argued that the duty of the trial court to issue a writ of possession ceased to be ministerial considering the irregularities in the foreclosure proceedings, as well as, the illegality in the titling of the subject properties by Star Two, and in its subsequent sale to respondent. Thus, petitioner prayed for the trial court to admit her Opposition, reconsider its Order dated April 24, 2018, quash respondent's Ex Parte Petition, and hold in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession and the Notice to Vacate pending resolution of the issues in Civil Case No. 05-12643. The trial court denied petitioner's Urgent Motion and ratiocinated that any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure cannot be a legal ground for refusing the issuance of a writ of possession;30 that a judge to whom an application for the issuance of such writ is made need not look into the validity of the mortgage or manner of the foreclosure;31 and that the obligation of a court to issue an ex parte writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale ceases to be ministerial once it appears that there is a third party in possession of the property who is claiming a right, adverse to that of the debtor-mortgagor, which is not the case here. The CA likewise denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated July 1, 2019. In the said Resolution, the appellate court also noted that petitioner has already voluntarily surrendered the possession of the subject properties to respondent; thus, the relief sought by petitioner has already been rendered moot.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the alleged voluntary surrender by petitioner of the subject properties rendered the relief sough moot.

 

HELD:

                Yes. It is settled that a purchaser of properties in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale is entitled to a writ of possession even before the expiration of the period of redemption provided he or she furnishes the necessary bond. After the expiration of the period without redemption, the right of the purchaser becomes absolute. Moreover, when the thing purchased at a foreclosure sale is in turn sold or transferred, the right to the possession thereof, along with all other rights of ownership, follows the thing sold to the new owner. The relief sought by petitioner: cancellation or suspension of the Writ of Possession, has already been rendered moot by her surrender of the subject properties to respondent. Having validly acquired possession of the subject properties, respondent can no longer be disturbed in its possession by mere cancellation or suspension of the implementation of the Writ of Possession. As discussed above, its right being absolute, respondent is entitled to the possession of the Subject Properties by virtue of its ownership. Petitioner's remedy would already have to be the annulment of the foreclosure and/or reconveyance of the Subject Properties.