Maxima Castro took out a loan secured by her property, but her signature was obtained fraudulently by Severino Valencia for a larger loan amount without her knowledge. When the property was scheduled for auction due to non-payment, the sale was postponed then held on a different date without proper notice. The court ruled the sale was null and void because the law requires at least 20 days notice by posting in public places and publishing in a newspaper, which did not occur when the sale was held on a different date than originally scheduled.
Maxima Castro took out a loan secured by her property, but her signature was obtained fraudulently by Severino Valencia for a larger loan amount without her knowledge. When the property was scheduled for auction due to non-payment, the sale was postponed then held on a different date without proper notice. The court ruled the sale was null and void because the law requires at least 20 days notice by posting in public places and publishing in a newspaper, which did not occur when the sale was held on a different date than originally scheduled.
Maxima Castro took out a loan secured by her property, but her signature was obtained fraudulently by Severino Valencia for a larger loan amount without her knowledge. When the property was scheduled for auction due to non-payment, the sale was postponed then held on a different date without proper notice. The court ruled the sale was null and void because the law requires at least 20 days notice by posting in public places and publishing in a newspaper, which did not occur when the sale was held on a different date than originally scheduled.
FACTS: Maxima Castro, accompanied by Severino Valencia, went to Rural Bank of Caloocan to apply for industrial loan. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage on Castors house, after that, the bank approved the loan of P3000. Valencia obtained from the bank an equal amount of loan affixing Castros signature as co-maker without its knowledge. The sheriff then sent a notice announcing the property would be sold at public auction to satisfy the obligation. Upon request, the auction sale which was scheduled for March 10, 1961was postponed for April 10, 1961. But April 10 was subsequently declared a special holiday so the sheriff sold the property on public auction on April 11, 1961 which was the next succeeding business day following the special holiday. Castro prayed for the annulment of sale alleging that there was fraud on the part of Valencias who induced her to sign as co-maker of a promissory note since she is a 70-year old widow who cannot read and write and it was only when she receive the notice of sheriff, she learned that the encumbrance on her property was P6000 and not for P3000. ISSUE: Whether or not the public auction sale was null and void for transferring the date already set by law. RULING: The sale is null and void for not having in accordance with Act 3135 which states that that a notice shall be given by posting notices of sale for not less than 20 days in at least 3public places and if the property is worth more than P400 such notice shall also be published for in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. The pretermission of a holiday applies only where the day, or the last day for doing any act required or permitted by law falls on a holiday or when the last day of a given period for doing an act falls on holiday. It does not apply toa day fixed by an office or officer of the government for an act to be done. Since April 10, 1961 was not the day or the last day set by law for the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, nor the last day of a given period but a date fixed by deputy sheriff, the sale cannot be legally made on the next succeeding business day without the notice the sale in accordance with Act no. 3135