REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE A real estate mortgage is a contract in which the debtor

guarantees to the creditor the fulfillment of a principal obligation, subjecting for the faithful
compliance therewith a real property in case of non-fulfillment of said obligation at the time
stipulated (Manresa). It is a lien on specific or identified immovable property. It directly and
immediately subjects the property upon which it is imposed, whoever the possessor may be,
to the fulfillment of the obligation for whose security it was constituted. It creates a real right
enforceable against the whole world (DBP v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 328 [1990]). Foreclosure of
mortgage
Foreclosure of mortgage is the process by which a property covered may be
subjected to sale to pay demand for which mortgages stand as security (Pacific Commercial
Co. v. Alvarez, 38 OG 758). Foreclosure is the necessary consequence of non-payment of
mortgage indebtedness. The mortgage can be foreclosed only when the debt remains
unpaid at the time it is due (Producers Bank v. CA, GR No. 111584, 17 Sept. 2001; Govt of
the PI v. Espejo, 57 Phil 496) or in case of default in the payment of obligation (PNB v. CA,
GR No. 126908, 16 Jan. 2003; Chinabank v. CA, 265 SCRA 327 [1996])
Demand is essential for default. Demand, however, is necessary for default to exist and
which gives the right to collect debt and foreclose the mortgage. The maturity dates in the
promissory notes or the acceleration clause ([i]n case of non-payment of this note or any
portion of it on demand, when due, on account of this note, the entire obligation shall
become due and demandable. . .) therein stated only indicate when payment can be
demanded. It is the refusal to pay after demand that gives the creditor a cause of action
against the debtor (DBP v. Licuanan, GR No. 150097, 26 February 2007). Default
commences upon judicial or extrajudicial demand (UCPB vs. Beluso, G.R. No. 159912,
August 17, 2007).Demand, however, is not necessary where the law or the obligations
expressly declare it unnecessary (Premiere Devt. Bank v. Central Surety & Insurance
Company, Inc., 579 SCRA 359, 13 February 2009).

Mora solvendi or debtors default is defined as a delay in the fulfillment of an

obligation, by reason of a cause imputable to the debtor. There are three requisites

necessary for a finding of default. First, the obligation is demandable and liquidated;

second, the debtor delays performance; third, the creditor judicially or extrajudicially

requires the debtors performance (Selegna Management & Devt. Corp. v. UCPB, GR No.

165662, 03 May 2006).

Prohibition against Pactum Commissorium.

A stipulation in a deed of mortgage which states that upon failure of the mortgagor to

pay the debt within the agreed period, the land covered by the mortgage shall become

property of the mortgagee or the transaction shall become a sale and the consideration shall

be considered as payment of the price of the land is pactum commissorium and is null and

void (Reyes v. Nebreja, 98 Phil 639 [1956]). Such stipulation is void since it enables the

mortgagee to acquire ownership of the mortgaged property without need of foreclosure

(Olea v. CA, 247 SCRA 274 [1995]); it is a nullity being contrary to the provisions of Article

2088 of the Civil Code (Lumayag v. Heirs of Jacinto Nemeno, 526 SCRA 315 [2007]).
Two modes of foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
Foreclosure of real estate mortgage is either done extra-judicially or judicially. The
provisions of Rule 68 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure govern judicial foreclosure. The
extra-judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage, on the other hand, is carried out in the
procedure governed by the provisions of Act 3135, as amended, otherwise known as An
Act to Regulate the Sale of Property Under Special Powers Inserted in or Annexed to Real
Estate Mortgages.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE UNDER ACT 3135, AS AMENDED

& REDEMPTION
Essential requirements under Act 3135
Under Act 3135, as amended and settled jurisprudence, the following essential
requirements must be met:
 1. There must be a special power of attorney inserted in or attached to the real
estate mortgage authorizing the sale pursuant to the provisions of Act, 3135, as amended
(Section 1; Paguyo v. Gatbunton, 523 SCRA 156 [2007]). 2. The sale must be
made within the province where the property or any part thereof is located, unless otherwise
stipulated (Section 2; Supena v. de la Rosa, 267 SCRA 1). 3. There must be a
notice of sale to be posted in three public places of the municipality or city where the
property is situated. If the property is worth more than P400.00, the notice shall also be
published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in
the city or municipality (Section 3). 4. The sale shall be made at public auction
between the hours of nine in the morning and four in the afternoon, and shall be under the
direction of the sheriff of the province, the justice or auxiliary justice of the peace (now
municipal judge) of the municipality in which such sale shall be made, or a notary public of
said municipality (Section 4). Procedure of extrajudicial foreclosure under Act 3135
In Administrative Matter No. 99-10-05-0 (as further amended on 07 August 2001), the
Supreme Court prescribed the following procedures in the extra-judicial foreclosure of
mortgage:
1. All applications for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage whether under the direction of
the sheriff or a notary public, pursuant to Act 3135, as amended, shall be filed with the
Executive Judge, through the Clerk of Court who is also the Ex-Officio Sheriff. 2. Upon
receipt of an application for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage, it shall be the duty of the
Clerk of Court to: a) receive and docket said application and to stamp thereon the
corresponding file number, date and time of filing; b) collect the filing fees therefore
pursuant to Rule 141, Section 7(c) as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC, and issue the
corresponding official receipt; c) examine, in case of real estate mortgage foreclosure,
whether the applicant has complied with all the requirements before the public auction is
conducted under the direction of the sheriff or a notary public, pursuant to Sec. 4 of Act
3135, as amended; d) sign and issue the certificate of sale, subject to the approval of the
Executive Judge, or in his absence, the Vice-Executive Judge. No certificate of sale shall be
issued in favor of the highest bidder until all fees provided in the aforementioned sections
and in Rule 141, Section 9(1) as amended by A.M. 00-2-01-SC, shall have been
paid; Provided, that in no case shall the amount payable under Rule 141, Section 9(1), as
amended, exceed P100,000.00; e) after the certificate of sale has been issued to the
highest bidder, keep the complete records, while awaiting any redemption within a period of
one (1) year from date of registration of the certificate of sale with the Register of Deed
concerned, after which, the records shall be archived. Notwithstanding the foregoing
provision, juridical persons whose property is sold pursuant to an extrajudicial foreclosure,
shall have the right to redeem the property until, but not after, the registration of the
certificate of foreclosure sale which in no case shall be more than three (3) months after
foreclosure, whichever is earlier, as provided in Section 47 of Republic Act No. 8791 (as
amended, Res. of August 7, 2001) Where the application concerns the extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgages of real estates and/or chattels in different locations covering one
indebtedness, only one filing fee corresponding to such indebtedness shall be collected. The
collecting Clerk of Court shall, apart from the official receipt of the fees, issue a certificate of
payment indicating the amount of indebtedness, the filing fees collected, the mortgages
sought to be foreclosed, the real estates and/or chattels mortgaged and their respective
locations, which certificate shall serve the purpose of having the application docketed with
the Clerks of Court of the places where the other properties are located and of allowing the
extrajudicial foreclosures to proceed thereat. 3. The notices of auction sale in extrajudicial
foreclosure for publication by the sheriff or by a notary public shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation pursuant to Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1079, dated
January 2, 1977, and non-compliance therewith shall constitute a violation of Section 6
thereof. 4. The Executive Judge shall, with the assistance of the Clerk of Court, raffle
applications for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage under the direction of the sheriff
among all sheriffs, including those assigned to the Office of the Clerk of Court and Sheriffs IV
assigned in the branches. 5. The name/s of the bidder/s shall be reported by the sheriff or
notary public who conducted the sale to the Clerk of Court before the issuance of the
certificate of sale. Time when to conduct auction sale. Issue: Whether a sale a public
auction, to be valid, must be conducted the whole day from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. of the
scheduled auction day. Section 4 of Act 3135 provides that the sale must take
place between the hours of nine in the morning and four in the afternoon. The
word between ordinarily means in time interval that separates. Thus, between the
hours of nine in the morning and four in the afternoon merely provides a time frame within
which an auction sale may be conducted. Therefore, a sale at public auction held within the
intervening period provided by law (i.e., at any time from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.) is valid,
without regard to the duration or length of time it took the auctioneer to conduct the
proceedings (PNB v. Cabatingan, 557 SCRA 426 [2008]). Act 3135 regulates the extrajudicial
sale of mortgaged real properties by prescribing a procedure which effectively safeguards
the rights of both debtor and creditor (ibid.). Notice and publication requirements.
1. Notice and publication under PD 1079 and Act 3135, as amended.
 Section 1 of PD 1079, as amended provides:
All notices of auction sales in extra-judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage under
Act 3135, as amended x x x required by law to be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in particular provinces and/or cities shall be published in newspapers or
publications published, edited and circulated in the same city and/or province where the
requirement of general circulation applies: Provided, That the province or city where the
publications principal office is located shall be considered the place where it is edited and
published x x x.
Section 3 of Act 3135, as amended, reads:
Notice shall be given by posting notices of the sale for not less than twenty days in at
least three public places of the municipality or city where the property is situated, and if
such property is worth more than four hundred pesos, such notice shall also be published
once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
municipality or city.
A reading of the above provisions gives us the impression that the publication of extra-
judicial sales under Act, 3135, if the property is worth more than four hundred pesos, shall
be in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or municipality where the property
lies. Hence, if the property in question is located in Quezon City, it logically follows that the
auction sale of said property should be published in a newspaper of general circulation that
is edited and published in Quezon City.
However, such application and/or interpretation are too narrow and very limited that it
virtually defeats the purpose and intention of the law. If this is the case, the leading dailies,
like the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) (with head office in Makati City) and Manila Bulletin
(with head office in Manila), which enjoys a wide circulation nationwide, cannot publish
notice of extra-judicial sales of properties located in Quezon City simply because it is outside
their place of publication. What is important is that the newspaper is of general
circulation in the place where the property/ies to be foreclosed is/are located. In a line
of cases, the Highest Court declared that publication of the extra-judicial sale in a
newspaper of general circulation is more than sufficient compliance with the notice-posting
requirement of the law (Fortune Motors v. Metrobank, 265 SCRA 72; Cristobal v. CA, 328
SCRA 256; Concepcion v. CA, 274 SCRA 614; Bohanan v. CA, 256 SCRA 355; Olizon v. CA,
236 SCRA 148; Gravina v. CA 220 SCRA 178). PD 1079 and Act 3135 do not require that the
newspaper which publishes judicial notices should be a daily newspaper (Fortune Motors,
265 SCRA 72).
In Olizon at 156, it was ruled that:
x x x the publication of the notice of sale in the newspaper of general circulation
alone is more than sufficient compliance with the notice-posting requirement of the law. By
such publication, a reasonably wide publicity had been effected such that those interested
might attend the public sale, and the purpose of the law had thereby subserved. The
object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of the nature and condition of the
property to be sold, and inform of the time, place and terms of the sale. Notices
are given for the purpose of securing bidders and to prevent a sacrifice of the property. If
these objects are attained, immaterial errors and mistakes will not affect the sufficiency of
the notice; x x x (emphases supplied)
An extra-judicial foreclosure sale is an action in rem and thus requires only notice by
publication and posting to bind the parties in the foreclosed property. No personal notice is
necessary (Langkaan Realty Devt., supra; Bohanan v. CA, supra; Fortune Motors, 265 SCRA
72).

A certificate of posting is not required, much less considered indispensable, for the
validity of a foreclosure sale under Act 3135 it is significant only in the matter of providing
compliance with the required posting of notice (Bohanan v. CA, 256 SCRA 355; Olizon v. CA,
256 SCRA 355; Cristobal v. CA, 328 SCRA 256 [2000]; DBP v. CA, GR No. 125838, 10 June
2003). The failure to post a notice is not per se a ground for invalidating the sale provided
that the notice thereof is duly published in a newspaper of general circulation (DBP v.
Aguirre, GR No. 144877, 07 September 2001).

However, the failure to publish the notice of auction sale as required by the statute
constitutes a jurisdictional defect which invalidates the sale (DBP v. Aguirre, GR No. 144877,
07 Sept. 2001).

The affidavit of publication executed by the publisher, business/advertising manager

that a newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation constitutes prima facie evidence of
compliance with the requisite publication (Bonnevie v. CA, 125 SCRA 122 [1983]; Sadang v.
GSIS, 18 SCRA 491).

A single act of posting the notice of auction sale satisfies the requirements of law. The
burden of proving that the posting requirement was not complied with is shifted to the one
who alleges non-compliance (Bonnevie v. CA, 125 SCRA 122 [1983]).

2. The purpose of notice and publication.

The object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of the nature and condition of the
property to be sold, and inform of the time, place and terms of the sale. Notices are given
for the purpose of securing bidders and to prevent a sacrifice of the property ( Olizon v. CA,
236 SCRA 148). Publication, therefore, is required to give the foreclosure sale a reasonably
wide publicity such that those interested might attend the public sale (Ouano v. CA, 129279,
04 March 2003).

3. The notice and publication requirement are mandatory and failure to comply is a
jurisdictional defect that vitiates the foreclosure auction sale.
Non-compliance with the notice and publication requirement in Act 3135, as amended is a
jurisdictional defect that vitiates the auction sale (Tambunting v. CA, 167 SCRA 16).
The rule is that statutory provisions governing publication of notice of mortgage
foreclosure sales must be strictly complied with, and that even slight deviation therefrom
will invalidate the notice and render the sale at least voidable. x x x It has been held that
failure to advertise a mortgage foreclosure sale in compliance with statutory requirements
constitute a jurisdictional defect invalidating the sale and that a substantial error or
omission in a notice of sale will render the notice insufficient and vitiate the sale.
(Tambunting v. CA, 167 SCRA 16).

Statutory provisions governing publication of notice of mortgage foreclosure sales must

be strictly complied with and slight deviations therefrom will invalidate the notice and render
the sale at the very least voidable (PNB v. Nepomuceno Productions, Inc., GR No. 139479,
27 December 2002; Ouano v. CA, GR No. 129279, 04 March 2003; Lucena v. CA, 313
SCRA47, [1999]).

The failure to publish the notice of auction sale as required by the statute constitutes
a jurisdictional defect which invalidates the sale (DBP v. Aguirre, GR No. 144877, 07
September 2001).

The right of a bank to foreclose a mortgage upon the mortgagors failure to pay his
obligation must be exercised according to its clear mandate and every requirement of the
law must be complied with, lest the valid exercise of the right end. The valid exercise of the
right ends when the right disappears, and it disappears when it is abused especially to the
prejudice of others (PNB v. Nepomuceno, supra.).

4. The parties have no right to waive the notice and publication requirements. There is no
estoppel in case of an agreement to dispense with the notice and publication requirements.

The parties have absolutely no right to waive the posting and publication requirements
(PNB v. Nepomuceno Productions, Inc., GR No. 139479, 27 December 2002; Ouano v. CA, GR
No. 129279, 04 March 2003). Foreclosure auction sale is imbued with public policy
considerations and any waiver on the notice and publication requirements would be
inconsistent with the intent and letter of Act 3135, as amended (PNB v. Nepomuceno,
supra.).

To request postponement of the sale is one thing; to request it without need of

compliance with the statutory requirements is another. Therefore, a party is not estopped
from questioning the validity of the foreclosure sale for non-compliance with Act 3135 ( PNB
v. Nepomuceno, supra.).

Publication, therefore, is required to give the foreclosure sale a reasonably wide

publicity such that those interested might attend the public sale. To allow the parties to
waive this jurisdictional requirement would result in converting into a private sale what
ought to be a public auction (Ouano v. CA, GR No. 129279, 04 March 2003).
 In the case of DPB v. CA, GR No. 125838, 10 June 2003, the Supreme Court clarified
that:
The form of the notice of extrajudicial sale is now prescribed in Circular No. 7-2002
issued by the Office of the Court Administrator on 22 January 2002. Section 4(a) of Circular
No. 7-2002 provides that: x x x The last paragraph of the prescribed notice of sale allows the
holding of a rescheduled auction sale without reposting or republication of the notice.
However, the rescheduled auction sale will only be valid if the rescheduled date of auction is
clearly specified in the prior notice of sale. The absence of this information in the prior
notice of sale will render the rescheduled auction sale void for lack of reposting or
republication. If the notice of auction sale contains this particular information, whether or
not the parties agreed to such rescheduled date, there is no more need for the reposting or
republication of the notice of the rescheduled auction sale.
5. Personal notice to the mortgagor is REQUIRED if it is stipulated.

There being no contractual stipulation therefore, personal notice is not necessary and
what governs is the general rule in Section 3 of Act 3135, as amended, which directs the
posting of notices of the sale in at least three (3) public places of the municipality where the
property is situated, and the publication therefore in a newspaper of general circulation in
said municipality (PNB v. International Corporate Bank, 199 SCRA 508).

Act 3135 only requires (1) the posting of notices of sale in three public places, and (2)
the publication of the same in a newspaper of general circulation. Personal notice to the
mortgagor is not necessary. Nevertheless, the parties to the mortgage contract are not
precluded from exacting additional requirement (Metrobank v. Wong, GR No. 120859, 26
June 2001; Concepcion v. CA, 274 SCRA 614). Thus, while publication of the foreclosure
proceedings in the newspaper of general circulation was complied with, personal notice is
still required when the same was mutually agreed upon by the parties as additional
condition of the mortgage contract. Failure to comply with such stipulation is fatal
(Community Savings & Loan Association, Inc. v. CA, 153 SCRA 564; Grand Farms Inc. v. CA,
193 SCRA 748; Concepcion v. CA, GR No. 122079, 27 June 1997).

The rule is that statutory provisions governing publication of mortgage

foreclosure sales must be strictly complied with, and that even slight deviation
therefrom will invalidate the notice and render the sale at least voidable. x x x
Where required by the statute or by the terms of the foreclosure decree, public notice of the
place and time of the mortgage foreclosure sale must be given, a statute requiring it
being held applicable to subsequent sales as well as to the first advertised sale of
the property. It has been held that failure to advertise a mortgage foreclosure sale in
compliance with statutory requirements constitutes a jurisdictional defect invalidating the
sale and that a substantial error or omission in a notice of sale will render the notice
insufficient and vitiates the sale (Tambunting v. CA, 167 SCRA 16, 23 [1988] citing Jalandoni
v. Ledesma, 64 Phil 1058 & 59 CJS 1314, emphases supplied).

The failure to publish the notice of auction sale as required by the statute constitutes a
jurisdictional defect which invalidates the sale (DBP v. Aguirre, GR No. 144877, 07
September 2001).

The Act only requires (1) the posting of notices of sale in three public places, and (2)
the publication of the same in a newspaper of general circulation. Personal notice to the
mortgagor is not necessary. Nevertheless, the parties to the mortgage contract are not
precluded from exacting additional requirements. In this case, petitioner and respondent in
entering into a contract of real estate mortgage, agree inter alia:
all correspondence relative to this mortgage, including demand letters, summonses,
subpoenas, or notifications of any judicial or extrajudicial action shall be sent to the
MORTGAGOR at 40-42 Aldeguer St., Iloilo City, or at the address that may hereafter be given
in writing by the MORTGAGOR to the MORTGAGEE.
Precisely, the purpose of the foregoing stipulation is to apprise respondent of any
action which petitioner might take on the subject property, thus according him the
opportunity to safeguard his rights. When petitioner failed to send the notice of foreclosure
sale to respondent, he committed a contractual breach sufficient to render the foreclosure
sale on November 23, 1981 null and void. (Metrobank v. Wong, 359 SCRA 608 [2001])

The OLIZON CASE is an exception:

Obviously, as correctly pointed out by respondent, what prompted the Court to dispense
with the posting requirement is the unusual nature of the attendant facts and the
peculiarity of the confluent circumstances involved in Olizon. It bears stressing that in the
said case, the extrajudicial-judicial foreclosure sale sought to be annulled was conducted
more than 15 years ago, thus, even on the equitable ground of laches, the Olizons action
for annulment of foreclosure proceedings and certificate of sale was bound to fail. An
extrajudicial foreclosure sale is an action in rem and thus requires only notice of publication
and posting to bind the parties in the foreclosed property. (Langkaan Realty Devt. v. UCPB,
GR No. 139437, 08 December 2000; Olizon v. CA, 2236 SCRA 148; Bohanan v. CA, 256 SCRA
355). No personal notice is necessary to the mortgagor (Bonnevie v. CA, 125 SCRA 122;
Fortune Motors v. Metrobank, 265 SCRA 72) unless stipulated upon by the parties (PNB v.
International Corporate Bank, 199 SCRA 508; Community and Savings Loan Association, Inc.
v. CA, 153 SCRA 564; Grand Farms Inc. v. CA, 193 SCRA 748). Publication of the extrajudicial
sale in a newspaper of general circulation is more than sufficient compliance with the notice-
posting requirement of the law (Cristobal v. CA, 328 SCRA 256; Gravina v. CA, 220 SCRA
178; Concepcion v. CA, 274 SCRA 614; Olizon v. CA, 236 SCRA 148). The notice and
publication requirement are mandatory and failure to comply is a jurisdictional defect that
vitiates the foreclosure auction sale (Tambunting v. CA, 167 SCRA 16). The parties have
absolutely no right to waive the posting and publication requirements. Foreclosure auction
sale is imbued with public policy considerations and any waiver on the notice and
publication requirements would be inconsistent with the intent and letter of Act 3135, as
amended (PNB v. Nepomuceno, GR No. 1139479, 27 December 2002). Publication is
therefore required to give the foreclosure sale a reasonably wide publicity such that those
interested might attend the public sale. To allow the parties to waive this jurisdictional
requirement would result in converting into a private sale what ought to be public auction
(Ouano v. CA, GR No. 129279, 04 March 2003). Notices are given for the purpose of securing
bidders and to prevent a sacrifice of the property (Olizon v. CA, 236 SCRA
148). REDEMPTIONRedemption period After the issuance of the certificate of sale to the
highest bidder, this shall be registered with the Register of Deeds where the property is
located. At this point, the remaining right of the mortgagor/debtor is to redeem the
property. Theperiod to redeem property sold extrajudicially following the foreclosure of
mortgage is one (1) year from the registration of the sheriffs certificate of foreclosure
sale (Bernardez v. Reyes, 201 SCRA 648; Section 6, Act 3135, as amended). Incase the
mortgagor is a juridical person Section 47, RA 8791, the General Banking Law of
2000 provides: Notwithstanding Act 3135, juridical persons x x x shall have the right to
redeem the property in accordance with this provision until, but not after, the registration of
the certificate of foreclosure sale with the applicable Register of Deeds which in no case
shall be more than three (3) months after the foreclosure, whichever is
earlier. Redemption period not suspended by TRO or a separate civil case. The period to
redeem was not suspended by the institution of a separate civil case for annulment of
mortgage, foreclosure, etc. (Sumerariz v. DBP, 21 SCRA 1374; Unionbank v. CA, GR No.
134068, 25 June 2001) and NEITHER is it suspended by the issuance of a TRO by the courts
(Peoples Financing Corp. v. CA, 192 SCRA 34). Redemption price
In case of redemption, a written notice of redemption must be served on the officer
who made the sale and a duplicate filed with the applicable Register of Deeds (Rosales v.
Yboa, 120 SCRA 869; Section 28[par. 3], Rule 39, Rules of Court). The redemption price shall
be: the purchase price with one percent (1%) per month interest; assessment or taxes paid
with 1% per month interest (Section 28, Rule 39). When the mortgagee is a bank or a
banking or credit institution, the redemption price is that which is stipulated in the mortgage
document or the outstanding obligation of the mortgage plus interest and expenses
(Unionbank v. CA, GR No. 134068, 25 June 2001; Ponce de Leon v. RFC, 36 SCRA 289; Sy v.
CA, 172 SCRA 125). The redemption amount includes the assessment of taxes paid by the
purchaser and the interest on the auction price that should be computed from the date of
the registration of the certificate of sale (Sps. Estanislao, Jr. v. CA, GR No. 143687, 31 July
2001).
Effect of failure to redeem.
If no redemption is made within the prescribed period, the buyer at foreclosure sale
becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased (Joven v. CA, 212 SCRA 700; PNB v.
Adil, 118 SCRA 110). The purchaser then has the absolute right to a writ of possession that
is the final process to carry out or consummate the extrajudicial foreclosure. Henceforth,
the mortgagor/debtor loses his right over the property (Bernardez v. Reyes, 201 SCRA 648;
Section 6, Act 3135, as amended). Consolidation of title likewise becomes a matter of right
on the part of the auction buyer, and the issuance of a certificate of title in favor of the
purchaser becomes ministerial upon the Register of Deeds (Unionbank v. CA, GR No.
133366, 05 August 1999).
Redemption vs. repurchase The right to redeem (a foreclosed property)
becomes functus oficio on the date of its expiry, and its exercise after the period is not really
one of redemption but of repurchase. Distinction must be made because redemption is by
force of law; the purchaser at public auction is bound to accept redemption. Repurchase
however of a foreclosed property, after redemption period, imposes no such obligation. After
expiry, the purchaser may or may not resell the property but no law will compel him to do
so. And, he is not bound by the bid price; it is entirely within his discretion to set a higher
price, for after all, the property already belongs to him as owner (Prudencio v. CA, 431 SCRA
566).