Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    LZK Holdings and Development Corp. vs.

    Uploaded by

    Ton Ton Cananea
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent bank was entitled to possession of the foreclosed property based on three key points: 1) The duty of the trial court to issue a writ of possession is ministerial in nature, not discretionary, upon the filing of the proper motion and bond. 2) Questions regarding the validity of the foreclosure sale must be determined later rather than to oppose the issuance of the writ. 3) Until the foreclosure sale is annulled by a court, the petitioner has no valid title and cannot prevent the writ of possession from being issued to the respondent bank.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    LZK Holdings and Development Corp. vs.

    Uploaded by

    Ton Ton Cananea
    37 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent bank was entitled to possession of the foreclosed property based on three key points: 1) The duty of the trial court to issue a writ of possession is ministerial in nature, not discretionary, upon the filing of the proper motion and bond. 2) Questions regarding the validity of the foreclosure sale must be determined later rather than to oppose the issuance of the writ. 3) Until the foreclosure sale is annulled by a court, the petitioner has no valid title and cannot prevent the writ of possession from being issued to the respondent bank.

    Original Title

    7. LZK Holdings and Development Corp. vs.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent bank was entitled to possession of the foreclosed property based on three key points: 1) The duty of the trial court to issue a writ of possession is ministerial in nature, not discretionary, upon the filing of the proper motion and bond. 2) Questions regarding the validity of the foreclosure sale must be determined later rather than to oppose the issuance of the writ. 3) Until the foreclosure sale is annulled by a court, the petitioner has no valid title and cannot prevent the writ of possession from being issued to the respondent bank.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    37 views1 page

    LZK Holdings and Development Corp. vs.

    Uploaded by

    Ton Ton Cananea
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent bank was entitled to possession of the foreclosed property based on three key points: 1) The duty of the trial court to issue a writ of possession is ministerial in nature, not discretionary, upon the filing of the proper motion and bond. 2) Questions regarding the validity of the foreclosure sale must be determined later rather than to oppose the issuance of the writ. 3) Until the foreclosure sale is annulled by a court, the petitioner has no valid title and cannot prevent the writ of possession from being issued to the respondent bank.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    LZK Holdings and Development Corp. vs. Planters Development Bank the issuance of a writ of possession.

    issuance of a writ of possession. Neither does the pending case for annulment of foreclosure sale,
    Related Topic and Jurisprudence – Rule 56 to 61 mortgage contract, promissory notes and damages stay the issuance of said writ.

    Facts:  A writ of possession is a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover the
    1. Petitioner LZK obtained a loan of P40,000,000 from respondent Planters Bank, secured by a possession of land. It commands the sheriff to enter the land and give possession of it to the
    mortgage on a land situated in La Union. person entitled under the judgment. It may be issued in case of an extrajudicial foreclosure of a
    2. When LZK failed to pay the loan, extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against the real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118. Under said
    mortgaged property were initiated by Planters Bank. At the auction sale, Planters Bank was provision, the writ of possession may be issued to the purchaser in a foreclosure sale either within
    the highest bidder of the foreclosed property. The sale was thereafter registered. the one-year redemption period upon the filing of a bond, or after the lapse of the redemption period,
    3. Thereafter, Planters Bank filed an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession without need of a bond.
    with the RTC of La Union.  To emphasize the writ’s ministerial character, we have in previous cases disallowed injunction
    4. In the meantime, LZK filed a complaint for annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure, to prohibit its issuance, just as we have held that issuance of the same may not be stayed by a
    mortgage contract, promissory notes, and damages with the RTC of Makati City. LZK pending action for annulment of mortgage or the foreclosure itself.
    also filed an urgent motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Three days  A writ of possession may also be issued after consolidation of ownership of the property in the name
    before the one-year redemption period expired, the Makati RTC issued a temporary restraining of the purchaser. It is settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the
    order effective for twenty days from said date, enjoining Planters Bank from consolidating title property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of sale.
    over the property. Hence, he is entitled to the possession of the property and can demand it at any time following the
    5. Thereafter, RTC Makati court ordered the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title.
    upon posting of a bond of P40,000,000, and suspended the consolidation of title. In such a case, the bond required in Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is no longer necessary. Possession of
    6. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Makati RTC. Planters Bank thereafter filed a the land then becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as confirmed owner. Upon proper
    petition for review with the Supreme Court but was denied. It became final and executory. application and proof of title, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty
    7. San Fernando RTC held in abeyance the resolution of the ex parte petition for the of the court.
    issuance of the writ of possession in view of the order of the Makati RTC suspending the
    consolidation of title. Notes:
    8. Planters Bank filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the order of 
    the San Fernando RTC. The appellate court granted the petition and annulled and set
    aside said orders.
    9. Petitioner contends that the ministerial duty of the court to issue the writ of possession only
    arises when title to the property has been consolidated in the name of the applicant.
    10. Hence the instant petition.

    Issue:
    o Main Issue: Whether respondent bank is entitled to the possession of the foreclosed property.

    Court’s Ruling:

    Yes. We have consistently held that the duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession is
    ministerial. Such writ issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the
    approval of the corresponding bond. No discretion is left to the trial court. Any question regarding
    the regularity and validity of the sale, as well as the consequent cancellation of the writ, is to be
    determined in a subsequent proceeding as outlined in Section 8 of Act No. 3135. Such question
    cannot be raised to oppose the issuance of the writ, since the proceeding is ex parte. The recourse is
    available even before the expiration of the redemption period provided by law and the Rules of
    Court.

    The trial on the merits has not even started. Until the foreclosure sale of the property in question is
    annulled by a court of competent jurisdiction, petitioner is bereft of valid title and of the right to
    prevent the issuance of a writ of possession to respondent. Until then, it is the trial court’s
    ministerial function to grant the possessory writ to respondent.

    The San Fernando RTC, given its ministerial duty to issue the writ, therefore, should have acted on
    the ex parte petition. The injunction order is of no moment because it should be understood to have
    merely stayed the consolidation of title. As previously stated, an injunction is not allowed to prohibit

    You might also like