UNION BANK V. CA (REMEDIAL)

It is settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale. Consolidation took place as a matter of right since there was no redemption of the foreclosed property and the TRO expired upon dismissal of the complaint.

Unionbank need not have informed private respondent that it was consolidating its title over the property upon the expiration of the redemption period, without the judgment debtor having made use of his right or redemption, the ownership of the property sold becomes consolidated in the purchaser.

Notices to the mortgagors and with more reason, to private respondents who are not even parties to the mortgage contract nor to the extrajudicial sale is not necessary.

In real estate mortgage, when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold with a view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the principal obligation. Thereafter, the mortgagor has one year within which to redeem the property from and after registration of the sale with the Register of deeds.

In case of non-redemption, the purchaser at foreclosure sale shall file with the RD, either a final deed of sale executed by the person authorized by virtue of the power of attorney embodied in the deed of mortgage, or his sworn statement attesting to the fact of non-redemption; whereupon the RD shall issue a new certificate of title in favor of the purchaser after the owner's duplicate of the certificate has been previously delivered and canceled. Thus, upon failure to redeem foreclosed realty, consolidation of title 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 RD.

There is moreover, nothing erroneous with the denial of private respondents' application for preliminary prohibitory injunction. The acts complained of have already consummated. It is impossible to restrain the performance of consummated acts through the issuance of prohibitory injunction. When the act sought to be prevented had long been consummated, the remedy of injunction could no longer be entertained, hearing the application for preliminary injunction would just be an exercise in futility.

In the case at bar, the consolidation of ownership over the mortgages property in favor of Unionbank and the issuance of a new title in its name during the pendency of an action for annulment and reconveyance will not cause irreparable injury to private respondents who are plaintiffs in the said preliminary injunction.

This is because as purchaser at a public auction, Unionbank is only substituted to ans acquires the right, title, interest, and claim of the judgment debtors or mortgagors to the property at the time of levy. Perforce, the judgment in the main action for reconveyance will not be rendered ineffectual by the consolidation of ownership and the issuance of title in the name of Unionbank.