RODRIGO PADERES and SONIA PADERES v. CA, CARLOTA P. VALENZUELA, in her capacity as the Li !

idat"r "# $anc" %i&ipin" Sa'in(s and )"rt(a(e $an* +,!&y -., /00.1 %acts2 1. Manila International Construction Corporation (MICC) executed a real estate mortgage over 21 registered parcels of land (including the improvements) in favor of Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Ban (Banco Filipino) in order to secure a loan of !1"##$"%%%.%%. &he mortgage 'as registered 'ith the (egistr) of *eeds of !asa) Cit) 2. Su+se,uentl) or in -ugust 1.#/" MICC sold one lot together 'ith the house thereon" to the the !aderes spouses and on 0anuar) ." 1.#1" MICC sold the house +uilt on another lot to the petitioners in the second case" the Bergado spouses. 2either sale 'as registered" ho'ever.11 /. For failure of MICC to settle its o+ligations" Banco Filipino extra3udiciall) foreclosed MICC4s mortgage. Banco Filipino 'as declared the highest +idde and a Certificate of Sale 'as issued 1. 2o redemption of the foreclosed mortgage having +een made 'ithin the reglementar) period" Carlota !. 5alen6uela" the then 7i,uidator of Banco Filipino" filed an ex parte !etition for the issuance of a 8rit of !ossession of the foreclosed properties 'ith the (egional &rial Court ((&C) of Ma ati. -fter hearing" the !etition 'as granted +) 9rder dated. $. 8hen the 8rit 'as served on the spouses " instead of vacating the t'o lots" the) filed separate petitions +efore the Court of -ppeals" assailing the validit) of the 8rit of !ossession. :. Court of -ppeals dismissed the consolidated petitions for lac of merit Iss!es2 -. 3ON as 4!yers in (""d #aith the Sp"!ses Paderes and Sp"!ses $er(ad" ha'e s!peri"r ri(ht "'er the )ICC. NO 2. 3ON they are still entitled to redeem the properties. 29 /. 3ON their respecti'e h"!ses sh"!&d n"t ha'e 4een inc&!ded in the a!cti"n sa&e "# the 5"rt(a(ed properties; 6. 3ON $anc" %i&ipin" 'i"&ated Secti"n 7, R!&e 89 "# the R!&es "# C"!rt :hen "n&y a )"ti"n t" en#"rce the 3rit "# P"ssessi"n :as #i&ed a&th"!(h it :as a&ready ; years since the RTC Order (rantin( its petiti"n 4eca5e #ina&. R!&in(2 NO 1. &hat petitioners purchased their properties from MICC in good faith is of no moment. &he purchases too place after MICC4s mortgage to Banco Filipino had +een registered in accordance 'ith -rticle 212$ of the Civil Code and the provisions of !.*. 1$2. (propert) registr) decree). -s such" under -rticles 1/12 and 212: of the Civil Code" a real right or lien in favor of Banco Filipino had alread) +een esta+lished" a. Cited at least t'o cases < Philippine National Bank v. Mallorca"< Sa&e "r trans#er cann"t a##ect "r re&ease the 5"rt(a(e. A p!rchaser is necessari&y 4"!nd t" ac*n":&ed(e and respect the enc!54rance t" :hich is s!4<ected the p!rchased thin(. a rec"rded rea& estate 5"rt(a(e is a ri(ht in rem, a &ien "n the pr"perty :h"e'er its ":ner 5ay 4e. A&& s!4se !ent p!rchasers there"# 5!st respect the 5"rt(a(e, :hether the trans#er t" the5 4e with or without the consent of the mortgagee. %"r, the 5"rt(a(e, !nti& dischar(e, follows the property. +. Roxas v. Buan2: < As trans#eree, he steps int" the &atter=s sh"es. &hus" in the instant case" considering that the propert) had alread) +een sold at pu+lic auction pursuant to an extra3udicial foreclosure" the onl) interest that ma) +e transferred +) 5alentin to (oxas is the right to redeem it 'ithin the period prescri+ed +) la'. p!rchaser=s ri(ht "# p"ssessi"n is rec"(ni>ed "n&y as a(ainst the <!d(5ent de4t"r and his s!ccess"r?in?interest 4!t n"t a(ainst pers"ns :h"se ri(ht "# p"ssessi"n is ad'erse t" the &atter. 2. &he de+tor in extra<3udicial foreclosures under -ct 2o. /1/$" or his successor<in<interest" has" one )ear from the date of registration of the Certificate of Sale 'ith the (egistr) of *eeds" a right to redeem the foreclosed mortgage"2# hence" petitioners" as MICC4s successors<in<interest" had one )ear from the registration of the Certificate of Sale on 0ul) 2." 1.#$ or until 0ul) 2." 1.#: for the purpose. !etitioners" ho'ever" failed to do so. 9'nership of the su+3ect properties 'as thus

consolidated in favor of Banco Filipino. It is sett&ed that the 4!yer in a #"rec&"s!re sa&e 4ec"5es the a4s"&!te ":ner "# the pr"perty p!rchased i# it is n"t redee5ed d!rin( the peri"d "# "ne year a#ter the re(istrati"n "# the sa&e. As s!ch, he is entit&ed t" the p"ssessi"n "# the said pr"perty -s to alleged ne' contract" SC said there 'as no contract perfected in the correspondences +et'een the +an and the spouses. - reading of the a+ove<,uoted correspondence reveals the a+sence of +oth a definite offer and an a+solute acceptance of an) definite offer +) an) of the parties. &he letters dated 9cto+er 1=" 1..: and 2ovem+er 1" 1..:" signed +) petitioners4 counsel" 'hile ostensi+l) proposing to redeem the foreclosed properties and re,uesting Banco Filipino to suggest a price for their repurchase" made it clear that an) proposal +) the +an 'ould +e su+3ect to further action on the part of petitioners. &he letter dated 9cto+er 2$" 1..: signed +) 7u6 *acasin" -ssistant 5ice<!resident of Banco Filipino" merel) invited petitioners to engage in further negotiations and does not contain a recognition of petitioners4 claimed right of redemption or a definite offer to sell the su+3ect properties +ac to them. !etitioners emphasi6e that in item no. / of their letter dated 2ovem+er #" 1..: the) committed to >su+3ect the properties (house and lot) to a real<estate mortgage 'ith the +an so that the amount to +e loaned 'ill +e used as pa)ment of the properties to +e redeemed.> It is clear from item no. 1 of the same letter" ho'ever" that petitioners did not accept Banco Filipino4s valuation of the properties at !="$%%.%% per s,uare meter and intended to >have the amount ?renegotiated@.> /. Aere" the record clearl) sho's that petitioners purchased their respective houses from MICC" as evidenced +) the -ddendum to *eed of Sale dated 9cto+er 1" 1.#/ and the *eed of -+solute Sale dated 0anuar) ." 1.#1. Being improvements on the su+3ect properties constructed +) mortgagor MICC" there is no ,uestion that the) 'ere also covered +) MICC4s real estate mortgage follo'ing the terms of its contract 'ith Banco Filipino and -rticle 212= of the Civil CodeB -rt. 212=. &he mortgage extends to the natural accessions" to the improvements" gro'ing fruits" and the rents or income not )et received 'hen the o+ligation +ecomes due" and to the amount of the indemnit) granted or o'ing 1. Court categoricall) held that the right of the applicant or a su+se,uent purchaser to re,uest for the issuance of a 'rit of possession of the land never prescri+esB Manlapas and Tolentino vs. Lorente ?1# !hil. 2.# (1.2$)@" 'hich has not )et +een a+andoned" that the ri(ht "# the app&icant "r a s!4se !ent p!rchaser t" as* #"r the iss!ance "# a :rit "# p"ssessi"n "# the &and ne'er prescri4es. . . Sta. Ana v. Menla - In specia& pr"ceedin(s the p!rp"se is t" esta4&ish a stat!s, c"nditi"n "r #act@ in &and re(istrati"n pr"ceedin(s, the ":nership 4y a pers"n "r a parce& "# &and is s"!(ht t" 4e esta4&ished. A#ter the ":nership has 4een pr"'ed and c"n#ir5ed 4y <!dicia& dec&arati"n, n" #!rther pr"ceedin( t" en#"rce said ":nership is necessary, eAcept :hen the ad'erse "r &"sin( party had 4een in p"ssessi"n "# the &and and the :innin( party desires t" "!st hi5 there#r"5 Ao'ever" the) are not 'ithout remed). -s reflected in the challenged Court of -ppeals decision" under Section # of -ct 2o. /1/$" as amended" petitioners" as successors<in<interest of mortgagor MICC" have /% da)s from the time Banco Filipino is given possession of the su+3ect properties to ,uestion the validit) of the auction sale under an) of the t'o grounds therein stated +) filing a petition to set aside the same and cancel the 'rit of possession