Scribd
Upload
563 views1 page

21 - CUA LAI CHU V LAQUI

The Supreme Court upheld the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser of property in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, despite a pending case questioning the validity of the sale. The purchaser's right to possession becomes absolute once they purchase the property. While the debtors could challenge the sale, it must be done within 30 days and in the same proceedings where possession was requested. As the debtors here were declared in default and did not follow proper procedure, their petition was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Paw Nyao
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
563 views1 page

21 - CUA LAI CHU V LAQUI

The Supreme Court upheld the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser of property in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, despite a pending case questioning the validity of the sale. The purchaser's right to possession becomes absolute once they purchase the property. While the debtors could challenge the sale, it must be done within 30 days and in the same proceedings where possession was requested. As the debtors here were declared in default and did not follow proper procedure, their petition was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Paw Nyao
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CUA LAI CHU, CLARO G. CASTRO, and JUANITA CASTRO vs. HON. HILARIO L.

LAQUI

G.R. No. 169190 / February 11, 2010

Digest by: Paw

“The right to possession of a purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is not affected by a pending
case questioning the validity of the foreclosure proceeding. The latter is not a bar to the former.”

FACTS:

-November 1994: Philippine Bank of Communication (respondent) loaned P3,200,000 to the petitioners.
To secure the loan, petitioners executed in favor of private respondent a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage.

-August 1997: the mortgage was amended, and the loan was increased by P1,800,000, making the
amount P5,000,000. For failure of petitioners to pay the full amount of the outstanding loan upon demand,
private respondent applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage.

-TRIAL COURT: Granted respondent’s motion for a declaration of general default and allowed them to
present evidence ex parte.

-COURT OF APPEALS: Petitioners appealed. However, it was dismissed since the counsel for
petitioners failed to indicate the updated PTR Number in the said petition, which is a ground for outright
dismissal under B.M 1132. The court held that a proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession is ex
parte in nature.

ISSUES:

- Whether the writ of possession was properly issued despite the pendency of a case questioning the
validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale even when petitioners were declared in default.

HELD/REASON:

-The Supreme Court held that since the private respondent had purchased the property at the foreclosure
sale, their right over the said property became absolute, vesting in it the corollary right of possession.

-Petitioners cannot oppose or appeal the court’s order granting the writ of possession in an ex parte
proceeding. The remedy of petitioners is to have the sale set aside and the writ of possession cancelled
in accordance with Section 8 of Act No. 3135, as amended:

SEC. 8. The debtor may, in the proceedings in which possession was requested, but not later
than thirty days after the purchaser was given possession, petition that the sale be set aside and the writ
of possession cancelled, specifying the damages suffered by him, because the mortgage was not
violated or the sale was not made in accordance with the provisions hereof.

-PETITION DISMISSED

You might also like