G.R. No. 155813 - CECILIA S. BALDUEZA, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT CLODUALDO M. ESCOBAR, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PRUDENTIAL BANK, AND HON. ARTURO G. TAYAG, DEPUTY SHERIFF OF THE RTC, BRANCH 79, MALOLOS, BULACAN.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, after examining all the documents submitted before this Court and pursuant to the provisions of Section 7, Act. 3135, as amended, let a writ of possession over a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-297416 (M) (formerly TCT No. T-114481 (M)) of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, Meycauayan Branch be issued against respondent Cecilia S. Baldueza and all occupants, tenants and other persons claiming to have rights and interest under her to vacate immediately the premises and ordering the Deputy Sheriff of this Court to execute said Writ and place petitioner Bank in possession thereof. [2] The RTC held that under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, [3] the purchaser is entitled to the possession of the property during the redemption period, provided that a proper motion has been filed, a bond approved and no third person is involved. It cited Vda. de Zaballero v. Court of Appeals [4] which held that after the expiration of the redemption period, a purchaser can demand possession of the land without posting a bond, and upon proper application and proof of title, the issuance of a writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in its Order dated February 15, 2002. Petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari , prohibition and preliminary injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit in its Decision dated July 26, 2002. [5] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution promulgated on October 10, 2002. [6] Hence, this petition. Petitioner died on November 27, 2002. In a Resolution dated January 27, 2003, the Court allowed that petitioner be substituted by her son, Caesar Baldueza, and her daughter, Jennifer Baldueza. Our task in an appeal by petition for review on certiorari is limited, as a jurisdictional matter, to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the Court of Appeals. [7] The substantive issue in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly sustained the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of respondent bank. The Court upholds the decision of the Court of Appeals as respondent bank is entitled to possession of the subject property. In several cases, this Court has held: [8] It is settled 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 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 3135 as ame