Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 155 views

    167 - PNB Vs Hon Midpantao Adil (1982)

    Uploaded by

    Bibi Jumpol
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance judge committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing orders preventing the enforcement of the writ of possession in favor of PNB, overruling the lower court. The SC found that under Presidential Decree 385, it was the duty of courts to place government financial institutions like PNB in possession and control of foreclosed properties in order to facilitate the collection of delinquent loans. As the purchaser of the foreclosed properties, PNB had an absolute right to possession that the courts were mandated to enforce based on its ownership rights. The injunctive orders suspending the writ were therefore annulled.

    Copyright:

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

    167 - PNB Vs Hon Midpantao Adil (1982)

    Uploaded by

    Bibi Jumpol
    155 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance judge committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing orders preventing the enforcement of the writ of possession in favor of PNB, overruling the lower court. The SC found that under Presidential Decree 385, it was the duty of courts to place government financial institutions like PNB in possession and control of foreclosed properties in order to facilitate the collection of delinquent loans. As the purchaser of the foreclosed properties, PNB had an absolute right to possession that the courts were mandated to enforce based on its ownership rights. The injunctive orders suspending the writ were therefore annulled.

    Original Title

    167 - PNB vs Hon Midpantao Adil (1982)

    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 Court of First Instance judge committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing orders preventing the enforcement of the writ of possession in favor of PNB, overruling the lower court. The SC found that under Presidential Decree 385, it was the duty of courts to place government financial institutions like PNB in possession and control of foreclosed properties in order to facilitate the collection of delinquent loans. As the purchaser of the foreclosed properties, PNB had an absolute right to possession that the courts were mandated to enforce based on its ownership rights. The injunctive orders suspending the writ were therefore annulled.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    155 views2 pages

    167 - PNB Vs Hon Midpantao Adil (1982)

    Uploaded by

    Bibi Jumpol
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance judge committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing orders preventing the enforcement of the writ of possession in favor of PNB, overruling the lower court. The SC found that under Presidential Decree 385, it was the duty of courts to place government financial institutions like PNB in possession and control of foreclosed properties in order to facilitate the collection of delinquent loans. As the purchaser of the foreclosed properties, PNB had an absolute right to possession that the courts were mandated to enforce based on its ownership rights. The injunctive orders suspending the writ were therefore annulled.

    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 2

    Title PNB vs Midpantao Adil, Gr.

    No L-52823, November 2, 1982


    Ponente DE CASTRO, J.
    Doctrine REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE
    Facts  Meliza obtained a loan from PNB which was secured by a
    mortgage over 2 parcels of land
     Meliza failed to pay the loan on maturity and the mortgage
    was foreclosed extrajudicially and PNB was able to purchase
    the properties
     PNB filed a petition for issuance of writ of possession before
    CFI which was granted. Upon issuance of the writ, the
    Deputy Sheriff served the it upon Meliza and family, but the
    latter requested for a grace period of 7 days to vacate the
    premises to which the Sheriff agreed. But when the Sheriff
    returned, he still found them in the premises and had not
    complied with the writ of possession.
     The Sheriff later on received an order by CFI judge
    suspending the implementation of the writ of possession for
    humanitarian reasons for 15 days
     Before expiration of the 15-day period, Meliza filed a
    complaint for the annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure,
    writ of possession and consolidation of ownership before CFI
    because the properties were foreclosed without personal
    notice to any of the respondents
    Lower Courts Granted preliminary injunction filed by respondents
    Issue W/N the CFI judge committed grave abused of discretion when he
    issued orders preventing the enforcement of the writ of possession? YES
    SC Ruling PD 385 mandated the court to place the government financial institution,
    which is PNB, in the possession and control of the property. This decree
    was enacted "in order to effect the early collection of delinquent loans
    from government financial institutions and enable them to continue
    effectively financing the development needs of the country" without
    being hampered by actions brought to the courts by borrowers.

    The rule is that after the redemption period has expired, the purchaser
    has the right to be placed in possession thereof. Here, it is the
    inescapable duty of the Sheriff to enforce the writ of possession,
    especially a new title has already been issued in the name of the
    purchaser. Even before the redemption period, it is ministerial upon the
    court to issue a writ of possession in favor of a purchaser, provided that
    a proper motion has been filed, a bond approved, and no 3rd person is
    involved.

    Here, the writ of possession was issued but its enforcement was
    suspended by the grace period given by the Sheriff who has no authority
    to do so, and later by the order of the judge on the ground as
    "humanitarian reason." If the applicable laws clearly allow the purchaser
    to have possession of the property foreclosed and mandate the court to
    give effect to such right, it would be a gross error for the judge to
    suspend the implementation of the writ of possession. Hence, once the
    writ of possession has been issued, the Court has no alternative but to
    enforce the writ without delay and in this case no motion for the
    suspension of the enforcement was filed.

    The right of PNB to the possession of the property is clearly unassailable.


    It is founded on its right of ownership. As the purchaser of the
    properties in the foreclosure sale, PNB’s right over the property has
    become absolute, vesting upon it the right of possession over an
    enjoyment of the property which the Court must aid in effecting its
    delivery. After such delivery, the purchaser becomes the absolute owner
    of the property.

    Hence, the injunctive orders by the CFI judge was annulled and set
    aside by SC.

    You might also like