. . . to forthwith lift the order of injunction dated 4 November 1983, and require plaintiffs to turn over to defendant bank all the income and rents they have received on the subject property during the redemption period up to and including the date of their actual remittance of the same.
It is likewise prayed that the scheduled pre-trial conference on 17 May 1983 at 8:30 a.m. be cancelled and held in abeyance pending final determination of defendant bank's motion to lift injunction. (pp. 144-145, Rollo)
In the meantime, present counsel of record for respondent bank entered his appearance. Judge Aguinaldo claimed some relationship with him. Hence, the reraffle of the case to another sala, Branch XIV — presided over by Judge Juan Y. Reyes. After more than 5 months' series of extensions, particularly on October 26, 1984, the petitioners finally submitted their Memorandum in support of their opposition to the respondent bank's aforestated Motion to Lift Injunction. On April 30, 1985, respondent bank's motion was denied and a motion for reconsideration was thereafter immediately filed. While the motion for reconsideration was pending, Judge Reyes retired and again there was a reraffle of the case which resulted in its being assigned to Judge Meinrado P. Paredes, of RTC XIII who denied on April 29, 1987, respondent bank's aforestated motion for reconsideration.
Finally the three (3) above mentioned orders of November 4, 1983 (granting writ of injunction); April 30, 1985 (denying respondent bank's motion to lift injunction), and April 29, 1987 (denying respondent bank's motion for reconsideration) were all reversed by respondent Court in its decision dated February 17, 1988.
Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration on February 29, 1988 which was denied thru a Court of Appeals resolution dated March 17, 1988, hence, this petition dated March 25 1988 with the following prayer —
WHEREFORE, petitioners most respectfully pray that the decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated February 17, 1988 be reversed and the Orders of the lower court dated November 4, 1983 and April 30,1985 be restored and further, that preliminary restraining order and preliminary injunction be issued restraining and enjoining the defendants jointly and severally from obtaining a writ of possession or a final deed of conveyance over petitioners' land and to restrain the defendants from registering the same as well as restraining and enjoining the defendants from collecting any rentals of the properties of petitioners. (pp. 21-22, Rollo)
This petition is completely without merit.
The law and jurisprudence are clear that both during and after the period of redemption, the purchaser at the foreclosure sale is entitled as of right to a writ of possession, regardless of whether or not there is a pending suit for annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure itself (without prejudice of course to the eventual outcome of said case). Hence, an injunction to prohibit the issuance of the writ of possession is entirely out of place (See Act 3135)
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed decision of respondent Court of Appeals lifting the writ of preliminary injunction is hereby AFFIRMED. Let this case be REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch XIV for further proceedings on Civil Case CEB-759.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave.
# Footnotes
1 Decision promulgated on February 17, 1988, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Campos, Jr. and Ricardo J. Francisco.
2 p. 9, Rollo.
3 p. 11, Rollo.
4 Decision of Court of Appeals dated February 17, 1988.
