The spouses Fortaleza obtained a loan secured by a real estate mortgage over their property. When they failed to pay, the creditors foreclosed and their son and daughter-in-law emerged as the highest bidders. The spouses Lapitan were issued a certificate of sale and took possession. The spouses Fortaleza refused to vacate so the spouses Lapitan filed for a writ of possession. The Court affirmed the issuance of the writ, finding that the property was not exempt from foreclosure as the family home since it was mortgaged, and the spouses Fortaleza failed to claim any exemption during the foreclosure proceedings.
The spouses Fortaleza obtained a loan secured by a real estate mortgage over their property. When they failed to pay, the creditors foreclosed and their son and daughter-in-law emerged as the highest bidders. The spouses Lapitan were issued a certificate of sale and took possession. The spouses Fortaleza refused to vacate so the spouses Lapitan filed for a writ of possession. The Court affirmed the issuance of the writ, finding that the property was not exempt from foreclosure as the family home since it was mortgaged, and the spouses Fortaleza failed to claim any exemption during the foreclosure proceedings.
The spouses Fortaleza obtained a loan secured by a real estate mortgage over their property. When they failed to pay, the creditors foreclosed and their son and daughter-in-law emerged as the highest bidders. The spouses Lapitan were issued a certificate of sale and took possession. The spouses Fortaleza refused to vacate so the spouses Lapitan filed for a writ of possession. The Court affirmed the issuance of the writ, finding that the property was not exempt from foreclosure as the family home since it was mortgaged, and the spouses Fortaleza failed to claim any exemption during the foreclosure proceedings.
FORTALEZA V. LAPITAN FACTS: Spouses Charlie and Ofelia Fortaleza (spouses Fortaleza) obtained a loan from spouses Rolando and Amparo Lapitan (creditors) in the amount of P1. million sub!ect to "#$ interest per annum. As seu!"t#, s$%uses F%!t&'e(& e)eute* %+ ,&+u&!# 28, 1--8 & .ee* %/ Re&' Est&te 0%!tg&ge %1e! t2e"! !es"*e+t"&' 2%use &+* '%t and re%istered under &C& 'o. &(#1)1. *+r,-ll .hen spouses Fortaleza failed to pa/ the indebtedness includin% the interests and penalties0 the creditors applied for e1tra!udicial foreclosure of the Real 2state 3ort%a%e . &he public auction sale 4as set on 3a/ 50 661. At the sale0 the creditors son 7r. Raul Lapitan and his 4ife Rona (spouses Lapitan) emer%ed as the hi%hest bidders 4ith the bid amount of P.) million. &hen0 the/ 4ere issued a Certificate of Sale 4hich 4as re%istered and annotated at the bac8 of &C& 'o. &(#1)1. T2e %+e-#e&! !e*e3$t"%+ $e!"%* e)$"!e* 4"t2%ut t2e s$%uses F%!t&'e(& !e*ee3"+g t2e 3%!tg&ge. &hus0 spouses Lapitan e1ecuted an affida9it of consolidation of o4nership on 'o9ember 60 66" and caused the cancellation of &C& 'o. &(#1)1 and the re%istration of the sub!ect propert/ in their names under &C& 'o. &()")5#) on Februar/ #0 66#. 7espite the fore%oin%0 t2e s$%uses F%!t&'e(& !e/use* s$%uses L&$"t&+ s /%!3&' *e3&+* t% 1&&te &+* su!!e+*e! $%ssess"%+ %/ t2e su56et $!%$e!t#. On Au%ust :0 66#0 spouses Lapitan filed an e1 parte petition for the issuance of 4rit of possession as ne4 re%istered o4ners of the sub!ect propert/. ;n their opposition0 spouses Fortaleza <uestioned the 9alidit/ of the real estate mort%a%e and the foreclosure sale. &he/ ar%ued that the mort%a%e 4as 9oid because the creditors bloated the principal amount b/ the imposition of e1orbitant interest. Spouses Fortaleza added that the foreclosure proceedin% 4as in9alid for non(compliance 4ith the postin% re<uirement. &he R&C ordered the issuance of a 4rit of possession e1plainin% that it is a ministerial dut/ of the court especiall/ since the redemption period had e1pired and a ne4 title had alread/ been issued in the name of the spouses Lapitan0 S$%uses F%!t&'e(& 3%1e* /%! !e%+s"*e!&t"%+, '&"3"+g t2&t t2e su56et $!%$e!t# "s t2e"! /&3"'# 2%3e &+* "s e)e3$t /!%3 /%!e'%su!e s&'e. &he R&C denied their motion. CA affirmed. ;SS=2> .?' the sub!ect propert/ is e1empt from forced sale because it is a famil/ home @2L7> 'o0 spouses FortalezaAs ar%ument that the sub!ect propert/ is e1empt from forced sale because it is a famil/ home deser9es scant consideration. As a rule0 the famil/ home is e1empt from e1ecution0 forced sale or attachment. @o4e9er0 Article 1))(") of the Famil/ Code e1plicitl/ allo4s the forced sale of a famil/ home Bfor debts secured b/ mort%a%es on the premises before or after such constitution.B ;n this case0 there is no doubt that s$%uses F%!t&'e(& 1%'u+t&!"'# e)eute* %+ ,&+u&!# 28, 1--8 & *ee* %/ Re&' Est&te 0%!tg&ge %1e! t2e su56et $!%$e!t# 42"2 4&s e1e+ +%t&!"(e* 5# t2e"! %!"g"+&' %u+se' %/ !e%!*. And assumin% that the propert/ is e1empt from forced sale0 spouses Fortaleza did not set up and pro9e to the Sheriff such e1emption from forced sale before it 4as sold at the public auction. As elucidated in Honrado v. Court of Appeals> .hile it is true that the famil/ home is constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a famil/ residence and is e1empt from e1ecution or forced sale under Article 1)" of the Famil/ Code0 su2 '&"3 /%! e)e3$t"%+ s2%u'* 5e set u$ &+* $!%1e* t% t2e S2e!"// 5e/%!e t2e s&'e %/ t2e $!%$e!t# &t $u5'" &ut"%+. Failure to do so 4ould estop the part/ from later claimin% the e1emption. As this Court ruled in Gomez v. Gealone> Althou%h the Rules of Court does not prescribe the period 4ithin 4hich to claim the e1emption0 the rule is0 ne9ertheless0 4ell(settled that t2e !"g2t %/ e)e3$t"%+ "s & $e!s%+&' $!"1"'ege g!&+te* t% t2e 6u*g3e+t *e5t%! &+* &s su2, "t 3ust 5e '&"3e* +%t 5# t2e s2e!"//, 5ut 5# t2e *e5t%! 2"3se'/ at the time of the le9/ or 4ithin a reasonable period thereafter. Certainl/0 reasonable time for purposes of the la4 on e1emption does not mean a time after the e1piration of the one(/ear period for a !ud%ment debtor to redeem the propert/. *+r,-ll 2<uall/ 4ithout merit is spouses Fortaleza s reliance on the cases of Tolentino and De Los Reyes in pra/in% for the e1ercise of the ri%ht of redemption e9en after the e1piration of the one(/ear period. ;n Tolentino0 4e held that an action to redeem filed 4ithin the period of redemption0 4ith a simultaneous deposit of the redemption mone/ tendered to the sheriff0 is e<ui9alent to an offer to redeem and has the effect of preser9in% the ri%ht to redemption for future enforcement e9en be/ond the one(/ear period. And in De Los Reyes0 4e allo4ed the mort%a%or to redeem the disputed propert/ after findin% that the tender of the redemption price to the sheriff 4as made 4ithin the one(/ear period and for a sufficient amount. &he circumstances in the present case are far different. &he spouses Fortaleza neither filed an action nor made a formal offer to redeem the sub!ect propert/ accompanied b/ an actual and simultaneous tender of pa/ment. It "s &'s% u+*"s$ute* t2&t t2e# &''%4e* t2e %+e-#e&! $e!"%* t% '&$se /!%3 t2e !eg"st!&t"%+ %/ t2e e!t"/"&te %/ s&'e 4"t2%ut !e*ee3"+g t2e 3%!tg&ge. F%! &'' "+te+ts &+* $u!$%ses, s$%uses F%!t&'e(& 2&1e 4&"1e* %! &5&+*%+e* t2e"! !"g2t %/ !e*e3$t"%+. Lastl/0 4e a%ree 4ith the CA that an/ <uestion re%ardin% the re%ularit/ and 9alidit/ of the mort%a%e or its foreclosure cannot be raised as a !ustification for opposin% the petition for the issuance of the 4rit of possession. &he said issues ma/ be raised and determined onl/ after the issuance of the 4rit of possession. ;ndeed0 BCtDhe !ud%e 4ith 4hom an application for 4rit of possession is filed need not loo8 into the 9alidit/ of the mort%a%e or the manner of its foreclosure.B T2e 4!"t "ssues &s & 3&tte! %/ %u!se. B&he rationale for the rule is to allo4 the purchaser to ha9e possession of the foreclosed propert/ 4ithout dela/0 such possession bein% founded on the ri%ht of o4nership.B &o underscore this mandate0 Section E of Act 'o. "1") %i9es the debtor(mort%a%or the ri%ht to file a petition for the settin% aside of the foreclosure sale and for the cancellation of a 4rit of possession in the same proceedin%s 4here the 4rit 4as issued 4ithin "6 da/s after the purchaser(mort%a%ee 4as %i9en possession. &he courtAs decision thereon ma/ be appealed b/ either part/0 5ut t2e %!*e! %/ $%ssess"%+ s2&'' %+t"+ue "+ e//et *u!"+g t2e $e+*e+# %/ t2e &$$e&'. BC'e&!'# t2e+, u+t"' t2e /%!e'%su!e s&'e %/ t2e $!%$e!t# "+ 7uest"%+ "s &++u''e* 5# & %u!t %/ %3$ete+t 6u!"s*"t"%+, t2e "ssu&+e %/ & 4!"t %/ $%ssess"%+ !e3&"+s t2e 3"+"ste!"&' *ut# %/ t2e t!"&' %u!t. &he same is true 4ith its implementationF other4ise0 the 4rit 4ill be a useless paper !ud%ment a result inimical to the mandate of Act 'o. "1") to 9est possession in the purchaser immediatel/.B *+r,-ll