PNB vs CA
3 of
G.R. No. 98382
May 17, 1993
Facts:
Two parcels of land under the common names of the respondent
Epifanio dela Cruz, his brother and sister were mortgaged to the
Petitioner Philippine National Bank. The lots were mortgaged to
guarantee the by three promissory notes. The first two were not
paid by the respondent. The third is disputed by the respondent
who claims that the correct date is June 30, 1961; however, in the
bank records, the note was really executed on June 30, 1958.
PNB presented under Act No. 3135 a foreclosure petition of the
mortgaged lots. The lots were sold or auctioned off with PNB as the
highest bidder. A Final Deed of Sale and a Certificate of Sale was
executed in favor of the petitioner. The final Deed of Sale was
registered in Registry of Property. Inasmuch as the respondent did
not buy back the lots from PNB, PNB sold on the same in a "Deed of
Conditional Sale". The Notices of Sale of foreclosed properties were
published on March 28, April 11 and April 12, 1969 in a newspaper.
Respondent brought a complaint for the reconveyance of the lands,
which the petitioner allegedly unlawfully foreclosed. The petitioner
states on the other hand that the extrajudicial foreclosure,
consolidation of ownership, and subsequent sale were all valid.
The CFI rendered its Decision; the complaint against the petitioner
was dismissed.
Unsatisfied with the judgment, respondent interposed an appeal
that the lower court erred in holding that there was a valid
compliance in regard to the required publication under Sec.
Act. 3135.
Respondent court reversed the judgment appealed from by
declaring void, inter alia, the auction sale of the foreclosed pieces of
realty, the final deed of sale, and the consolidation of ownership.
Hence, the petition with SC for certiorari and intervention.
Issue:
WON the required publication of The Notices of Sale on the
foreclosed properties under Sec. 3 of Act 3135 was complied.
Ruling:
No. The first date falls on a Friday while the second and third dates
are on a Friday and Saturday, respectively. Section 3 of Act No. 3135
requires that the notice of auction sale shall be "published once a
week for at least three consecutive weeks". Evidently, petitioner
bank failed to comply with this legal requirement. The Supreme
Court held that:
The rule is that statutory provisions governing publication of notice
of mortgage foreclosure sales must be strictly complied with, and
those even slight deviations therefrom will invalidate the notice and
render the sale at least voidable.
WHEREFORE, the petitions for certiorari and intervention are
hereby dismissed and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
affirmed in toto.