THE PHILIPPINE STAR PILIPINO STAR NGAYON THE FREEMAN PANG-MASA BANAT

Thu | 09/21/2017 06:57pm | Forex:

$1:50.985

FOLLOW US:

Home Headlines Opinion Nation World Business Sports Entertainment Lifestyle

SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS AS USUAL BANKING MOTORING ENVIRONMENT REAL ESTATE AGRICULTURE TELECOMS
Stock Update As of
09/21/2017 03:20 PM

Who owns the foreclosed property during the

redemption period: The mortgagor or the successful
bidder?
POINT OF LAW By POINT OF LAW Francis Lim | Updated December 10, 2002 - 12:00am

0 31 googleplus 1 3 Like 11

A recurring question is often asked: after foreclosure proceedings and during the redemption period, who
owns the foreclosed property? Is it the mortgagor or the successful bidder? The question is asked because a
view is expressed to the effect that the successful bidder acquires ownership of the property subject to a
resolutory condition, i.e., the right of the mortgagor or other redemptioner to extinguish the bidder’s
ownership by redeeming the property.

This may not be known to many but the Supreme Court has resolved this question way back in 1992. In
LATEST STORIES TRENDING
Medida vs. Court of Appeals , 208 SCRA 887 (1992), spouses Dolino failed to pay their mortgage loan to the
Cebu Development Bank, which foreclosed the piece of land put up by the spouses as security. Juan
Aegis Jvris: Suspect fratmen willing to
Gandioncho purchased the property during the foreclosure sale. Alarmed by the prospect of losing the
cooperate with probe
property, spouses Dolino obtained a new loan from the Cebu City Savings and Loan Association and
September 21, 2017 - 6:46pm
mortgaged the same property. They again defaulted in the payment of the second loan, resulting in the
foreclosure of the property for the second time. The Association was the highest bidder in the second Roxas sad human rights campaign warning
foreclosure sale. The spouses filed an action against the Association to nullify the second foreclosure sale as becoming ‘true’
September 21, 2017 - 5:57pm
well as the corresponding certificate of sale issued pursuant thereto. The trial court rendered judgment
upholding the loan and the real estate mortgage, but annulling the foreclosure sale for having been done in De Lima, Trillanes call Duterte 'pathological liar'
violation of the notice requirements prescribed by law. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision over coming DAP cases
and further declared the real estate mortgage in favor of the Association void and ineffective. The Court of September 21, 2017 - 5:44pm

Appeals reasoned out that, at the time the mortgage to the Association was executed, the mortgagor IN PHOTOS: Thousands protest martial law,
spouses were no longer the owners of the lot, having supposedly lost the same when the lot was sold to a killings under Duterte
purchaser in the foreclosure sale under the prior mortgage. In so holding, the Court of Appeals relied on a September 21, 2017 - 5:43pm
statement of the Supreme Court in Dizon vs. Gaborro , 83 SCRA 688 (1978), to the effect that after the Austin out to make case for naturalization in
foreclosure sale of a mortgaged land, the mortgagor is divested of his full right as owner to dispose of the Chooks Pilipinas' Champions Cup bid
land. September 21, 2017 - 5:30pm

The Worst Body Language Mistakes, and How

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a mortgagor, whose property had been extrajudically to Avoid Them (Work + Money)
foreclosed, may validly execute a mortgage contract over the same property in favor of a third party during Itching This Part of Your Body Is a Sign Of
the redemption period? Alzheimer's (memoryrepairprotocol.com)

View more » Recommended by

To resolve the issue, the High Court had to determine who is the owner of property during the period of
redemption. For, if as suggested by the Supreme Court in Dizon, the mortgagor is divested of his ownership
upon the foreclosure of the property, he can no longer mortgage the property because an essential requisite
of a valid mortgage is that the mortgagor is the owner of the property being mortgaged (Art. 2085, Civil
Code).

The Supreme Court explained away its obiter dictum in Dizon, by pointing out an inconsistency in the
statements of the Court in the said case. According to the Court, "[I]f, as admitted, the purchaser at the
foreclosure merely acquired an inchoate right to the property which could ripen into ownership only upon the
lapse of the redemption period without his credit being discharged, it is illogical to hold that during the same
period . . . the mortgagor is "divested" of his ownership, since the absurd result would be that the land will
consequently be without an owner although it remains registered in the name of the mortgagor."

The Supreme Court held that during the redemption period, the mortgagor remains the owner of the
foreclosed property and may mortgage it to a third party. The right of the successful bidder is merely inchoate
until after the period of redemption has expired without the right being exercised. The title to the land sold TRENDING VIDEO
under mortgage foreclosure remains in the mortgagor until the expiration of the redemption period and
conveyance by a master deed. To hold otherwise would create the inequitable situation wherein the
mortgagor would be deprived of the opportunity, which may be his last recourse, to raise funds with which to
timely redeem his property through another mortgage thereon.

In legal contemplation, what is actually effected where redemption is seasonably made by the mortgage
debtor is not the recovery of ownership of his land, which ownership he never lost, but the elimination from
his title of the mortgage lien. The American rule is similarly to the effect that the redemption of property sold
under a foreclosure sale defeats the inchoate right of the purchaser and restores the property to the same
condition as if no sale had been attempted. Further, it does not give to the mortgagor a new title, but merely
restores to him his title freed of the encumbrance of the lien foreclosed.

The Medida case has far-reaching implications. For example, the mortgagor may sell the property during the
redemption period as he remains the owner of the property. The foreclosed property cannot also be
considered as part of the assets of the successful bidder such that it cannot be levied upon in case a writ of
preliminary attachment is issued against him. Only the inchoate right of the bidder to the property can be
attached. Neither can the property be considered part of the estate of the deceased in case the successful
bidder is a natural person. These are just some of the legal implications and surely, there are other legal
implications flowing from the case. Knowing the Medida case is definitely worth one’s while.

(The author is a senior partner of the Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices or ACCRALAW. He
may be contacted at 830-8000.)

Click here to join the discussion

FOLLOW US:

SPONSORED POSTS

Your ultimate guide to outdoor Mang Inasal awards 2017 Traveloka App makes booking
photography with the Huawei GawadPilipinoy to ‘Hospital on adventures easy
P10, P10 Plus Wheels’ founder

SPONSORED CONTENT Recommended by

British Expats: Discover How Concepteurs CAO : ce Expats' top tips about living in
the UK Pension Reform webinaire est pour vous France
Affects You (3DS) (InterNations)
(Abbey Wealth)

The Incredible New Designs The most addictive game of Why Doctors Will No Longer
Of NFL Helmets For All 32 the year! Prescribe Metformin (Watch)
Teams (Forge Of Empires) (healthnewstips.today)
(Frank151)

MORE BUSINESS SECTIONS

 Index bounces back as ghost month ends Home
Government finalizes P30-B Hungary loan for Laguna Lake Headlines
cleanup, rubber manufacturing Opinion
Japan firms still keen on expanding Nation
World
BFAR collects P12.8-M fines for IUU fishing
Business
DOT to launch Bring Home a Friend
Sports
MRC Allied invests in Leyte solar project
Entertainment
Franchisers expect at least 10% growth Lifestyle
AirAsia sets direct Vietnam flights Other Sections
Big Brother knows
BPO sector at risk

FEEDBACK

Philstar Global
About | Contact | Advertise

Unit 909-910 Infinity Tower 26th St. BGC, Taguig City

Tel. No. (632) 847-0048

Site Map Privacy Policy Member Agreement Copyright Notice Copyright © 2017. Philstar. All Right Reserved