14. Spouses Nicasio C. Marquez and Anita J.

Marquez, Petitioners and Spouses Carlito Alindog and Carmen Alindog, Respondents G.R. No. 184045 By Grace Facts: Sometime in June 1998, petitioner Anita J. Marquez extended a loan in the amount of P500,000.00 to a certain Benjamin Gutierrez (Gutierrez). As security therefor, Gutierrez executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage dated June 16, 1998 over a parcel of land located in Tagaytay City with an area of 660 square meters, more or less, covered by TCT No. T-13443, registered under the name of Benjamin A. Gutierrez, married to Liwanag Camerin. The mortgage was duly annotated on the dorsal portion of TCT No. T-13443, which Sps. Marquez had verified as clean prior to the mortgage. Since Gutierrez defaulted in the payment of his loan obligation, Anita sought the extra- judicial foreclosure of the subject property. At the public auction sale held on January 19, 2000, Anita emerged as the highest bidder for the amount of P1,171,000.00. Upon Gutierrezs failure to redeem the same property within the prescribed period therefor, title was consolidated under TCT No. T41939 on November 5, 2001 in the name of the petitioners-spouses which, however, bore an annotation of adverse claim dated March 2, 2000 in the names of respondents-spouses. Said annotation was copied from an earlier annotation on TCT No. T-13443 made only after the subject propertys mortgage to Sps. Marquez. On March 21, 2000, Sps. Alindog filed a civil case for annulment of real estate mortgage and certificate of sale with prayer for damages against Sps. Marquez and a certain Agripina Gonzales before the RTC. Sps. Alindog alleged that they purchased the subject property from Gutierrez way back in September 1989, but were unable to secure a certificate of title in their names because Gonzales deceived them and she could no longer be found when the respondents-spouses learned that the property had already been mortgaged to Sps. Marquez. In their defense, Sps. Marquez disputed Sps. Alindogs ownership over the subject property, arguing that the purported sale in the latters favor was never registered and therefore, not binding upon them. On March 16, 2005, Anita filed an ex- parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession before the RTC, docketed as LRC Case No. TG-05-1068, claiming that the same is ministerial on the courts part following the consolidation of her and her husbands title over the subject property. Impleaded in said petition are Sps. Gutierrez, including all persons claiming rights under them. In an Order dated August 1, 2005, the RTC granted Anitas ex -parte petition and thereby directed the issuance of a writ of possession in her favor. Claiming that they would suffer irreparable injury if the implementation of the writ of possession in favor of Sps. Marquez would be left unrestrained, Sps. Alindog sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction with prayer for damages. In an Order dated November 14, 2005, RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Sps. Marquez from taking possession of the subject property until after the controversy has been fully resolved on the merits. The said issuance was based on the RTCs appreciation of the initial evidence adduced by Sps. Alindog, concluding that they appear to have a right to be protected. Thus, notwithstanding the consolidation of Sps. Marquezs title over the subject property, the RTC granted Sps. Alindogs prayer for injunctive relief, holding that any further dispossession on their part would cause them irreparable injury. January 22, 2014

Aggrieved, Sps. Marquez moved for reconsideration, essentially pointing out that, as the confirmed and registered owners of the subject property, they are entitled to its possession as a matter of right. They argued that pursuant to Sections 7 and 8 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, the RTC was legally bound to place them in possession of the subject property pending resolution of the annulment case. In an Order dated January 17, 2007, the RTC denied the motion of the Sps. Marquez. Unperturbed, petitioners-spouses elevated the case to the CA on certiorari. In a Decision dated February 29, 2008, the CA denied Sps. Marquezs petition as it found no grave abuse of discretion on the RTCs part when it issued the injunctive writ that enjoined Sps. Marquez from taking possession of the subject property. Dissatisfied, Sps. Marquez moved for reconsideration which was, however, denied in a Resolution dated August 6, 2008, hence, this petition. Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when it issued the injunctive writ which enjoined Sps. Marquez from taking possession of the subject property. Held: The petition is meritorious. It is an established rule that the purchaser in an 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 therefor. A writ of possession duly applied for by said purchaser should issue as a matter of course, and thus, merely constitutes a ministerial duty on the part of the court. Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, if the RTC has the power during the period of redemption to issue a writ of possession on the ex parte application of the purchaser, there is no reason why it should not also have the same power after the expiration of the redemption period, especially where a new title has already been issued in the name of the purchaser. It is thus settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale. As such, he is entitled to the possession of the said property and can demand it at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title. The buyer can in fact demand possession of the land even during the redemption period except that he has to post a bond in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended. No such bond is required after the redemption period if the property is not redeemed. Possession of the land then becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as confirmed owner. Upon proper application and proof of title, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court. In this case, it is clear that the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of Sps. Marquez, who had already consolidated their title over the extra-judicially foreclosed property, is merely ministerial in nature. The RTC therefore gravely abused its discretion when it issued the injunctive writ which enjoined Sps. Marquez from taking possession of the subject property. Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal patently violates the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. Here, while the RTC had initially issued a writ of possession in favor of Sps. Marquez, it defied existing

jurisprudence when it effectively rescinded the said writ by subsequently granting Sps. Alindog's prayer for injunctive relief. By acting averse to well-settled rules and resultantly depriving Sps. Marquez of their right of possession over the subject property, the Court therefore concludes that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in this case. In effect, the CA's contrary ruling thereto is hereby reversed and set aside, which consequentially leads to the nullification of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC in favor of Sps. Alindog, and the reinstatement of the writ of possession issued by the same court in favor of Sps. Marquez. Wherefore, the petition is granted. The Decisions of the CA and RTC are hereby reversed and set aside. Accordingly, the writ of preliminary injunction is nullified, while the Writ of Possession in LRC Case No. TG-05-1068 is reinstated. So ordered.