G.R. No. 162757 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, VS. CHRISTOPHER LUMBO AND MILAGROS LUMBO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the mortgagor or his successor-in-interest must redeem the foreclosed property within one year from the registration of the sale with the Register of Deeds in order to avoid the title from consolidating in the purchaser. x x x If the redemption period expires without the mortgagor or his successor-in-interest redeeming the foreclosed property within one year from the registration of the sale with the Register of Deeds, the title over the property consolidates in the purchaser. The consolidation confirms the purchaser as the owner entitled to the possession of the property without any need for him to file the bond required under Section 7 of Act No. 3135. [22] The issuance of a writ of possession to the purchaser becomes a matter of right upon the consolidation of title in his name, [23] while the mortgagor, by failing to redeem, loses all interest in the property. [24] The property was sold at the public auction on January 12, 1999, with UCPB as the highest bidder. The sheriff issued the certificate of sale to UCPB on the same day of the sale. Considering that UCPB registered the certificate of sale in its name on February 18, 1999, the period of redemption was one year from said date. By virtue of the non-redemption by the respondents within said period, UCPB consolidated the title over the property in its name. It is clear enough, therefore, that the RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion but acted in accordance with the law and jurisprudence in denying the respondents application for the injunctive writ filed on February 14, 2002 in Special Proceedings No. 5884 to prevent the implementation of the writ of possession issued on December 4, 2001. Consequently, the CA grossly erred in granting the respondents petition for certiorari and/or mandamus , and in enjoining the RTC from implementing the writ of possession in favor of UCPB. Other weighty considerations justify resolving this appeal in favor of UCPB. The first is that the CA did not properly appreciate the nature of the supposed error attributed to the RTC. Assuming, though not conceding, that the RTC did err in denying the respondents application for injunction to prevent the implementation of the writ of possession, its error related only to the correct application of the law and jurisprudence relevant to the application for injunction. As such, the error amounted only to one of judgment, not of jurisdiction. An error of judgment is one that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and such error is reviewable only through an appeal taken in due course. In contrast, an error of jurisdiction is committed where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, and such error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari . [25] Considering that there is no question that the RTC had jurisdiction over both Civil Case No. 5920 and Special Proceedings No. 5884, it should follow that its consideration and resolu