Sps. Marquez vs. Sps.

Alindog
Facts:
Anita Marquez extended a loan in the amount of Php 500,000 to a certain Benjamin
Gutierrez. As a security therefore, Gutierrez executed a Deed of Real Estate
Mortgage over a parcel of land.
Gutierrez defaulted in the payment of his obligation thus Anita Marquez sought the
extra-judicial foreclosure of the subject property and rose as the highest bidder in
the public auction. Upon Gutierrezs failure to redeem the property within the
prescribed period, title was consolidated in the name of the Spouses Marquez
which, however, bore an annotation of adverse claim in the name of Spouses
Alindog.
Spouses Alindog filed a case for annulment of real estate mortgage and certificate
of sale asserting that they purchased the property from Gutierrez in 1989 but
unable to secure a certificate of title in their names because they have entrusted
Gutierrez with such tasked but was deceived by him.
Anita Marquez filed an ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) claiming that the same is ministerial on the
part of the court following the consolidation of her and her husbands title over the
subject property.
Spouses Alindog sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or
a writ of preliminary injunction which was granted by the court. The said TRO was
not extended thus, the sheriff was able to implement the writ and turn over the
possession of the subject property to the Spouses Marquez.
Later, RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Spouses Marquez from
taking possession until controversy has been fully resolved in the merits.
Aggrieved, Spouses Marquez moved for reconsideration pointing out that they are
entitled to the possession of the property as a matter of right pursuant to Sec. 7 of
Act No. 3135. On the other hand, Spouses Alindog filed a Motion for Approval of
Cash Bond and Regain Possession of the property.
RTC granted the motion of the Spouses Alindog while denying that of the Spouses
Marquez.
Spouses Marquez elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on certiorari but the
same was also denied. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the part of the RTC when it issued the writ of injunction which enjoined
Spouses Marquez from taking possession of the property.

2. Whether or not petitioner-spouse is entitled to the writ of possession over the

subject property.
Ruling:
Petition is meritorious.
Purchaser in extra-judicial foreclosure sale is entitled to the possession of the
property and can demand that he be placed in possession of the same either during
or after the expiration of the redemption period as a matter of course upon the
filling of the proper motion and approval of the corresponding bond.
However, Section 33 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides for an exception to
such rule wherein, possession of the mortgaged property may be awarded to a
purchaser in extra-judicial foreclosure unless a third-party is actually holding the
property by adverse claim.
As ruled by the court, a third-party who is holding the property by adverse claim
contemplates a situation in which a third-party holds the property by adverse title or
right such as a co-owner, tenant or usufruct who claims a right superior to that of
the mortgagor. In the case at bar, the claim of the Spouses Alindog over the
property is grounded from their purchase of the land from Gutierrez. Accordingly, it
cannot be doubted that they are Gutierrezs successor-in-interest who do not have a
right superior to him.
Therefore, the exception provided in Section 33 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is
not applicable in the case at bar for the Spouses Alindog are not claiming adverse
claim to the property of Gutierrez. Thus, the Spouses Marquez are entitled to the
possession of the subject property.