Cua Lai Chu vs Laqui

Cua Lai Chu (Petitioner) obtained a loan of 3.2 M

and to secure such they executed a deal of Real
Estate Mortgage in favor of Laqui (Respondent)
Upon failure to pay Laqui applied for extra
judicial foreclosure and in turn Cua Lai Chu filed
to annul said foreclosure and TRO.

RTC Ruled in favor of petitioner granting annulment

of foreclosure and TRO then subsequently reversed its
own decision. Respondent emerged as the highest
bidder and sale was executed in favor of respondent
with 1 year redemption period.

After 1 year redemption period respondent filed

for consolidation and an issuance for the writ of
possession while petitioners filed for opposition
which was denied and granted respondents
motion for declaration of general default and
allowed him to present evidence ex parte.

CA Dismissed on both procedural and substantive

grounds since petitioners failed to indicate PTR
number.
ISSUE: W/N Writ of Possession was issued properly
despite the pending case questioning the validity of
sale on said property
RULING: Yes. 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. Furthermore, since the
foreclosed property was not redeemed within the
mentioned period respondent acquired an absolute
right as a purchaser.
DOCTRINE: Art. 433 Actual possessions under claim of
ownership raise disputable presumption of ownership.
The true owner must resort to judicial process for the
recovery of property.