NORMA I. BARING, petitioner, vs. ELENA LOAN AND CREDIT
COMPANY, INC., respondent
G.R. No. 224225 | August 14, 2017
FACTS:
Defendants-appellants Norma Baring, Esmeraldo Hernaez, and
Sps. Virgilio and Rosario Bernardino obtained a series of loans and other
credit accommodations in the initial amount of P300,000.00 from herein
petitioner-appellee Elena Loan and Credit Company, Inc. As a security for the
said loan, Baring executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over a parcel of
land, with improvements located at Las Pinas City. In the Real Estate Mortgage,
the parties agreed that Elena Loan, as the mortgagee, may foreclose the
mortgage extrajudicially should Baring, the mortgagor, default in the payment
of her obligations.
Subsequently, the debtors failed to pay their obligations
despite repeated demands. Consequently, Elena Loan filed a Petition for Foreclosure
for the said property. During the public auction, Elena Loan merged as the
highest bidder and was later on issued a Certificate of Sale.
Accordingly, as the new owner of the subject property, Elena
Loan sent a demand letter to Baring and Hernaez requesting them to vacate the
subject property. However, the demand remained unheeded.
On December 4, 2009, Elena Loan filed an Ex-Parte Petition
for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession. In its Petition, Elena Loan prayed
for the issuance of a writ of possession directing the sheriff to eject the
mortgagor Baring and place it in complete possession of the subject property,
free from any adverse occupants.
The RTC granted Elena Loan’s prayer for writ of possession.
Petitioner filed an appeal with the CA which was denied for lack of merit.
Petitioner filed a Manifestation with motion for
reconsideration where she claimed that respondent is not authorized by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to act as a lending company and,
accordingly, it is devoid of any authority and personality to file the petition
for foreclosure of the real estate mortgage and to request for the issuance of
an ex parte writ of possession in its favor.
The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration saying
that the question laid by petitioner regarding the legal personality and
authority of respondent to file the petition for issuance of a writ of
possession is clearly misplaced and cannot work to defeat the latter’s right to
the issuance of the writ of possession as the absolute owner of the subject
property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is the absolute owner of the
subject property.
RULING:
In this case, respondent foreclosed the subject property
after petitioner and her co-debtors failed to pay their obligation under the
promissory notes despite repeated demands. Upon compliance with the legal
requirements, a public auction was held where respondent emerged as the highest
bidder. A certificate of sale was issued in respondent’s favor and was
registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Las Piñas City on
November 27, 2007. As petitioner did not exercise her right of redemption over
the foreclosed property, the title to the property was consolidated in the name
of respondent. Consequently, as the new registered owner of the subject
property, respondent is entitled to exercise all the attributes of ownership as
provided in Article 428.
Thus in Gallent, Sr. v. Velasquez, the court said:
It is well-settled that the purchaser in an extrajudicial
foreclosure of real property becomes the absolute owner of the property if no
redemption is made within one year from the registration of the certificate of
sale by those entitled to redeem. As absolute owner, he is entitled to all the
rights of ownership over a property recognized in Article 428 of the New Civil
Code, not least of which is possession, or jus possidendi.
A torrens title recognizes the owner whose name appears in
the certificate as entitled to all the rights of ownership under the civil law.
The Civil Code of the Philippines defines ownership in Articles 427, 428 and
429. This concept is based on Roman Law which the Spaniards introduced to the
Philippines through the Civil Code of 1889. Ownership, under Roman Law, may be exercised
over things or rights. It primarily includes the right of the owner to enjoy
and dispose of the thing owned.
And the right to enjoy and dispose of the thing includes the
right to receive from the thing what it produces, [jus utendi; jus fruendi] the
right to consume the thing by its use, [jus abutendi] the right to alienate,
encumber, transform or even destroy the thing owned, [jus disponendi] and the
right to exclude from the possession of the thing owned by any other person to
whom the owner has not transmitted such thing [jus vindicandi].
Since respondent is the absolute and registered owner of the
subject property, and entitled to the possession thereof, the CA correctly
ruled that it was the RTC’s ministerial duty to issue the writ of possession
prayed for by the respondent. The issuance of the writ of possession becomes a
ministerial function upon the proper application and proof of title.
Comments
Post a Comment