Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

0 0 RELATED TITLES

138 views

21_CUA LAI CHU v


LAQUI
Uploaded by Paw Nyao on Feb 17,
2011

Full description Criminal Special Penal People v


Procedure Flow… Laws Reviewer
Chart
SaveSearch
Embed Sharedocuments
80 million Print Upload EN

Download Search document


Home Download Search document

Saved

CUA LAI CHU, CLARO G. CASTRO, and JUANITA CASTRO vs. HON. HILARIO L. LAQUI

Bestsellers G.R. No. 169190 / February 11, 2010

Digest by: Paw

Books “The right to possession of a purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is not affected by a pending
case questioning the validity of the foreclosure proceeding. The latter is not a bar to the former.”

Audiobooks FACTS:

-November 1994: Philippine Bank of Communication (respondent) loaned P3,200,000 to the petitioners.
To secure the loan, petitioners executed in favor of private respondent a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage.
Magazines
-August 1997: the mortgage was amended, and the loan was increased by P1,800,000, making the
amount P5,000,000. For failure of petitioners to pay the full amount of the outstanding loan upon demand,
private respondent applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage.
Documents -TRIAL COURT: Granted respondent’s motion for a declaration of general default and allowed them to
present evidence ex parte.

-COURT OF APPEALS: Petitioners appealed. However, it was dismissed since the counsel for
Sheet Music petitioners failed to indicate the updated PTR Number in the said petition, which is a ground for outright
dismissal under B.M 1132. The court held that a proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession is ex
parte in nature.

ISSUES:

- Whether the writ of possession was properly issued despite the pendency of a case questioning the
validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale even when petitioners were declared in default.

HELD/REASON:

-The Supreme Court held that since the private respondent had purchased the property at the foreclosure
sale, their right over the said property became absolute, vesting in it the corollary right of possession.

-Petitioners cannot oppose or appeal the court’s order granting the writ of possession in an ex parte
proceeding. The remedy of petitioners is to have the sale set aside and the writ of possession cancelled
in accordance with Section 8 of Act No. 3135, as amended:

SEC. 8. The debtor may, in the proceedings in which possession was requested, but not later
than thirty days after the purchaser was given possession, petition that the sale be set aside and the writ
of possession cancelled, specifying the damages suffered by him, because the mortgage was not
violated or the sale was not made in accordance with the provisions hereof.

-PETITION DISMISSED

This document is...


Read books, audiobooks, and more
Related Scribd
titles Useful Not useful
½ View
GET — On the App Store

Reward Your Curiosity


Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.

Read Free For 30 Days

No Commitment. Cancel anytime.


Criminal Special Penal People vs. Perez RCBC vs IAC Case Donation Int
Procedure Flow… Laws Reviewer Digest.docx Vivos Sample
Chart

Share this document

Documents Similar To 21_CUA LAI CHU v LAQUI

Criminal Procedure Special Penal Laws People vs. Perez RCBC vs IAC Ca
Flow Chart Reviewer UPLOADED BY Digest.docx
UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY Beverly Jane H. Bul… UPLOADED BY
John Dx Lapid Monica Cajucom shambiruar

ABOUT SUPPORT LEGAL

About Scribd Help / FAQ Terms

Press Accessibility Privacy

Our blog Purchase help Copyright

Join our team! AdChoices

Contact Us Publishers

Invite Friends

Gifts

Copyright © 2019 Scribd Inc. . Browse Books . Site Directory . Site Language: English