You are on page 1of 23

Caltex v.

IAC and Herbert Manzana

Facts: Manzana purchased on credit petroleum products from Caltex. Manzanas


indebtedness amounted to P361,218.66. Manzana executed a Deed of First
Mortgage in favour of Caltex over a parcel of land in Province of Camarines Norte.
Caltex sent Manzana statements of account and later demanded payment of his
entire debts. Manzana failed to pay, Caltex filed a complaint before the RTC for the
entire amount due.
Caltex extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgaged property. The mortgaged property was
sold at auction to Caltex, who was the only bidder, for P20,000. The foreclosure was
allegedly known by Manzana only 10 years later when such fact was manifested by
Caltex in its reply to the opposition of Manzana to the motion for execution pending
appeal.
RTC ordered Manzana to pay Caltex the amount of P353,218.66 after deducting the
amount paid by Traders Insurance and Surety Company on its surety bond. IAC
affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Manzana filed an MR.
IAC issued a resolution ordering that the recors are remanded to trial court for
purposes of determining the deficiency due to plaintiff. It also said that the action in
the trial court cannot be said for recovery of deficiency because it was for the whole
amount and not deficiency.
MR filed by Caltex was denied. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the mere filing of a collection suit for the recovery of the debt
secured by real estate mortgage constitutes waiver of the other remedy of
foreclosure.

Held: It is of no moment that the collection suit was filed ahead, what is determinative
is the fact that the foreclosure proceedings ended even before the decision in the
collection suit was rendered. As a matter of fact, CALTEX informed the trial court that
it had already consolidated its ownership over the property, in its reply to the
opposition of Manzana to the motion for execution pending appeal filed by it.
The collection suit filed before the trial court cannot be considered as a deficiency
judgment because a deficiency judgment has been defined as one for the balance of
the indebtedness after applying the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property to
such indebtedness and is necessarily filed after the foreclosure proceedings. It is
significant to note that the judgment rendered by the trial court was for the full amount
of the indebtedness and the case was filed prior to the foreclosure proceedings.
A suit for the recovery of the deficiency after the foreclosure of a mortgage is in the
nature of a mortgage action because its purpose is precisely to enforce the mortgage
contract; it is upon a written contract and upon an obligation of Manzana to pay the
deficiency which is created by law (see Development Bank of the Philippines v.
Tomeldan et al., G.R. No. 51269, November 17, 1980, 101 SCRA 171). Therefore,
since more than ten (10) years have elapsed from the time the right of action accrued,
CALTEX can no longer recover the deficiency from Manzana.

Page 1 of 23
- Petitioners answer by saying that The plaintiff, being a mere third party
Bank Of America v. American Realty corp (Short title) mortgagor and not a party to the principal restructuring agreements, was
GR # 133876 | 321 SCRA 659 | Date December 29, 1999 never made a party defendant in the civil cases filed in Hongkong and
Petition: For certiorari Petitioner: BANK OF AMERICA, NT and SA Respondent: England, There is actually no civil suit for sum of money filed in the
AMERICAN REALTY CORPORATION and COURT OF APPEALS Philippines since the civil actions were filed in Hongkong and England. As
such, any decisions (sic) which may be rendered in the abovementioned
DOCTRINE courts are not (sic) enforceable in the Philippines unless aseparate action to
Remedies available to the mortgage creditor are deemed alternative and not enforce the foreign judgments is first filed in the Philippines, pursuant to Rule
cumulative. Notably, an election of one remedy operates as a waiver of the other. For 39, Section 50 of the Revised Rules of Cour.
this purpose, a remedy is deemed chosen upon the filing of the suit for collection or
upon the filing of the complaint in an action for foreclosure of mortgage, pursuant to ISSUE/S
the provision of Rule 68 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. As to extrajudicial 1. W/N a mortgage-creditor waive its remedy to foreclose the real estate mortgage
foreclosure, such remedy is deemed elected by the mortgage creditor upon filing of constituted over a third party mortgagors property situated in the Philippines by filing
the petition not with any court of justice but with the Office of the Sheriff of the an action for the collection of the principal loan before foreign courts YES
province where the sale is to be made, in accordance with the provisions of Act No.
3135, as amended by Act No. 4118. PROVISIONS
Palagay nalang nung provision
FACTS
- Bank of America NT & SA (BANTSA) is an international banking and RULING & RATIO
financing institution duly licensed to do business in the Philippines, 1. YES
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of - Contrary to petitioners arguments, we therefore reiterate the rule, for clarity
California, United States of America while private respondent American and emphasis, that the mere act of filing of an ordinary action for collection
Realty Corporation (ARC) is a domestic corporation. operates as a waiver of the mortgage-creditors remedy to foreclose the
- Bank of America International Limited (BAIL), on the other hand, is a limited mortgage. By the mere filing of the ordinary action for collection against the
liability company organized and existing under the laws of England. principal debtors, the petitioner in the present case is deemed to have
- BANTSA and BAIL on several occasions granted three major multi-million elected a remedy, as a result of which a waiver of the other necessarily must
United States (US) Dollar loans to the following corporate borrowers: (1) arise. Corollarily, no final judgment in the collection suit is required for the
Liberian Transport Navigation, S.A.; (2) El Challenger S.A.; and (3) Eshley rule on waiver to apply.
Compania Naviera S.A. - In our jurisdiction, the remedies available to the mortgage creditor are
o all of which are existing under and by virtue of the laws of the deemed alternative and not cumulative. Notably, an election of one remedy
Republic of Panama and are foreign affiliates of private respondent. operates as a waiver of the other. For this purpose, a remedy is deemed
- Due to the default in the payment of the loan amortizations, BANTSA and chosen upon the filing of the suit for collection or upon the filing of the
the corporate borrowers signed and entered into restructuring agreements. complaint in an action for foreclosure of mortgage, pursuant to the provision
As additional security for the restructured loans, private respondent ARC as of Rule 68 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. As to extrajudicial
third party mortgagor executed two real estate mortgages,4 dated 17 foreclosure, such remedy is deemed elected by the mortgage creditor upon
February 1983 and 20 July 1984, over its parcels of land including filing of the petition not with any court of justice but with the Office of the
improvements thereon, located at Barrio Sto. Cristo, San Jose Del Monte, Sheriff of the province where the sale is to be made, in accordance with the
Bulacan provisions of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118.
- Eventually, the corporate borrowers defaulted in the payment of the - Private respondent ARC constituted real estate mortgages over its
restructured loans prompting petitioner BANTSA to file civil actions5 before properties as security for the debt of the principal debtors. By doing so,
foreign courts for the collection of the principal loan. private respondent subjected itself to the liabilities of a third party mortgagor.
- On 16 December 1992, petitioner BANTSA filed before the Office of the Under the law, third persons who are not parties to a loan may secure the
Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, Philippines, an application for extrajudicial latter by pledging or mortgaging their own property. Notwithstanding, there is
foreclosure6 of real estate mortgage. no legal provision nor jurisprudence in our jurisdiction which makes a third
- On 12 February 1993, private respondent filed before the Pasig Regional person who secures the fulfillment of anothers obligation by mortgaging his
Trial Court, Branch 159, an action for damages8 against the petitioner, for own property, to be solidarily bound with the principal obligor. The signatory
the latters act of foreclosing extrajudicially the real estate mortgages despite to the principal contractloanremains to be primarily bound. It is only
the pendency of civil suits before foreign courts for the collection of the upon default of the latter that the creditor may have recourse on the
principal loan. mortgagors by foreclosing the mortgaged properties in lieu of an action for
the recovery of the amount of the loan.
Page 2 of 23
- In this case, the petitioners are have deemed to have waied their claim over
the third party mortgage by filing collection suits against the principal
debtors.

DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION of
the amount awarded as exemplary damages. Accordingly, petitioner is hereby
ordered to pay private respondent the sum of P99,000,000.00 as actual or
compensatory damages; P50,000.00 as exemplary damage and the costs of suit. SO
ORDERED.

Page 3 of 23
San Jose v. Court of Appeals that a substantial error or omission in a notice of sale will render the notice
Petitioner: Cesar San Jose and Margarita Batongbakal insufficient and vitiate the sale.
Respondent: Court of Appeals and Sps. De Guzman o The Notice of Sheriffs Sale, in this case, did not state the correct
225 SCRA 450 | G.R. No. 106953 number of the transfer certificate of title of the property to be sold.
This is a substantial and fatal error which resulted in invalidating
DOCTRINE the entire Notice.
Notice of Sheriffs Sale must contain the correct title number and technical description
of property foreclosed to be valid.
o That the correct technical description appeared on the Notice does
not constitute substantial compliance with the statutory
FACTS requirements.
- San Jose filed a complaint to annul the extra-judicial foreclosure sale
o The purpose of the publication of the Notice of Sheriffs Sale is to
inform all interested parties of the date, time and place of the
conducted by the Sheriff.
foreclosure sale of the real property subject thereof. Logically, this
o Apparently the land mortgaged by San Jose to De Guzman as not only requires that the correct date, time and place of the
security for payment of a 12k loan. They allegedly failed to comply foreclosure sale appear in the notice but also that any and all
to the conditions of the mortgage and the land was sold at public interested parties be able to determine that what is about to be
auction, De Guzman being the purchaser. sold at the foreclosure sale is the real property in which they have
o San Jose contends that the foreclosure sale was null and void for an interest.
failure to comply with the requirements of the law that governs
extra-judicial foreclosure sale on real estate mortgage. DISPOSITION
- San Jose contends that the foreclosure sale was null and void for failure to WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE and a new
comply with the requirements of the law that governs extra-judicial decision rendered:
foreclosure sale on real estate mortgage. 1) Declaring the Extra-judicial Foreclosure Sale of the property of the petitioner-
spouses null and void.
o Particularly, his failure to give notice to San Jose of the extrajudicial 2) Ordering the appropriate Register of Deeds to reinstate Transfer Certificate of Title
foreclosure.
No. T-159703 in the name of petitioner Margarita Batongbakal married to petitioner
o Pertinent contention is, The property mentioned in the Notice of Cesar San Jose, giving it full force and effect as though it had never been cancelled.
Sheriffs sale and in the minutes of the auction sale was covered 3) Ordering the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-30.762(M) in the
by TCT no. T-169705 NOT by T-159703, the title to the name of private respondent spouses Marcos and Gloria de Guzman for being void ab
mortgaged property subject of the foreclosure sale. initio. With costs against the private respondents.
- The Trial Court and the Court of Appeal upheld the validity of the extrajudicial SO ORDERED.
foreclosure.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S
1. W/N the requirements of notice in extrajudicial foreclosure has been complied
with NO

PROVISIONS
Sec. 3. Notice shall be given by posting notices of sale for not less that twenty (20)
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 at least three consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city.

RULING & RATIO


1. YES
- Failure to advertise a mortgage foreclosure sale in compliance with statutory
requirements constitutes a jurisdictional defect invalidating the sale and

Page 4 of 23
OLIZON vs COURT OF APPEALS Sec. 3. Notice shall be given by posting notices of the sale for not less than twenty
GR No. 107075 September 1, 1994 days in at least three public places of the municipality or city where the property is
Petition: PETITION TO ANNUL THE EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE situated, and if such property is worth more than four hundred pesos, such notice
Petitioner: ARMANDO S. OLIZON and ILUMINADA C. OLIZON shall also be published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a
Respondent: COURT OF APPEALS and PRUDENTIAL BANK newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city.

DOCTRINE: EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE RULING:

FACTS: 1.NO

1) Spouses Armando and Iluminada Olizon obtained a loan from Prudential It is now a well-settled rule that personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial
Bank in the amount of P25,000.00 and as security, they executed in favor of foreclosure proceedings is not necessary. Section 3 of Act No. 3135 governing
the bank a real estate mortgage (REM) over a parcel of land consisting of extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages, as amended by Act No. 4118,
1,000 square meters. requires only the posting of the notice of sale in three public places and the
2) Olizon spouses failed to pay their obligation upon its maturity so the bank publication of that notice in a newspaper of general circulation. Hence, the lack of
extrajudicially foreclosed the real estate mortgage (REM). personal notice to the mortgagors, herein petitioners, is not a ground to set
3) At a public auction thereafter held on March 11, 1975, the subject property aside the foreclosure sale.
was sold to respondent bank as the highest bidder, pursuant to which it was
issued a certificate of sale as of the same date. Assuming arguendo that personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial foreclosure
4) On March 12, 1975, the said certificate of sale was duly annotated at the is necessary, the court concurred with the finding of the CA that the mortgagors were
back of Olizon's TCT. actually notified by the bank of the foreclosure proceedings based on the letters of
5) On June 5, 1978, due to the failure of the spouses to redeem the foreclosed Atty. Fule, Legal Officer of the bank, to Olizon spouses regarding their failure to pay
property within the period of redemption, title to the property was their obligations and their filing of foreclosure proceedings. The Clerk of Court also
consolidated in favor of the bank. sent a letter informing the Olizon spouses that the bank filed an application of
6) On January 14, 1986, the bank filed with the RTC of Kalookan City a petition foreclosure to their REM and the public auction of the mortgaged parcel of land
to reconstitute TCT which was lost in the Office of the Registry of Deeds of together with a copy of the Notice of Sale.
Kalookan City. It was granted.
7) Old TCT in the name of the spouses was cancelled and a new TCT was 2.NO
issued in the name of the bank.
8) On November 27, 1989, the bank filed with the RTC of Kalookan City a There was sufficient publicity of the sale through the newspaper publication. There is
petition for the issuance of a writ of possession against the spouses. completely no showing that the property was sold for a price far below its value as to
9) On March 8, 1990, a petition, by way of opposition, was filed by the spouses insinuate any bad faith, nor was there any showing or even an intimation of collusion
wherein they sought the cancellation of the writ of possession, the between the sheriff who conducted the sale and respondent bank. This being so, the
nullification of the certificate of sale, and the nullification of the foreclosure alleged non-compliance with the posting requirement, even if true, will not justify the
proceedings. They alleged lack of notice of the auction sale and lack of setting aside of the sale.
posting of the notice of sale as required by Section 3 of Act No. 3135, as
amended. Failure of spouses to discharge the burden of proving by convincing evidence
their allegation that there was actually no compliance with the posting
RTC DECISION: The foreclosure of the real estate mortgage executed by the bank requirement
and the certificate of sale as null and void
CA DECISION: Reversed the RTCs decision The foreclosure proceeding has in its favor the presumption of regularity and the
burden of evidence to rebut the same is on petitioners. Where the allegation is an
ISSUES: essential part of the cause of action or defense in a civil case, whether posited in an
affirmative or negative form, the burden of evidence thereon lies with the pleader.
1. W/N personal notice to the mortgagors about the foreclosure sale is Besides, the fact alone that there was no certificate of posting attached to the sheriff's
necessary. records of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale is not sufficient to prove the lack of
2. W/N the requirement on posting the notice of sale as required in Act No. posting, especially in this case where the questioned act and the record thereof are
3135 was not complied with. already 16 years old. It is quite unfair to now shift to respondent bank the burden of
proving the fact of posting considering the length of time that has elapsed, aside from
PROVISION: (Act No. 3135, as amended) the fact that the sheriff who conducted the public sale and who was responsible for
Page 5 of 23
the posting of the notice of sale is already out of the country, with the records being of respondent bank.
silent on his present whereabouts or the possibility of his returning here.
Negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time
Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must stand
At no time after the debt became due and demandable and the mortgage property
It is not a matter of lack of compliance with the requirements of the law, rather, it is a had been foreclosed, or even thereafter, did petitioners offer to pay their mortgage
matter of unavailability of certain documents due to the loss thereof, considering that obligation to redeem their property. Petitioners' collective acts are, therefore,
more than sixteen (16) years had lapsed from the date of the extra-judicial foreclosure indicative of their acquiescence to and acknowledgment of the validity of the
of the real estate mortgage. Indeed, the presumption of regularity in the performance foreclosure proceedings and the sale, as well as a recognition of respondent bank's
of official duty by the sheriff, more particularly, compliance with the provisions of Act just and legal title over the property acquired thereby.
3135, as amended, has not been overturned by the Olizons.

Spouses are already considered estopped DISPOSITION:

They are estopped through laches from questioning the regularity of the sale as well WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed
as the ownership of the land in question. It is evident from the records that the petition judgment of respondent Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
to annul the foreclosure sale was filed by herein petitioners only after 16 long years
from the date of sale and only after a transfer certificate of title over the subject
property had long been issued to respondent bank. Herein petitioners failed to
advance any justification for their prolonged inaction. It would be inequitable to allow
petitioners, after the lapse of an almost interminable period of time, to defeat an
otherwise indefeasible title by the simple and dubious expedient of invoking a
purported irregularity in the foreclosure proceedings.

Besides, it has been said that in seeking to set aside a foreclosure sale, the moving
party must act promptly after he becomes aware of the facts on which he bases his
complaint, and in this connection, notice of an irregularity may be presumed from the
fact that the mortgagor has knowledge of the sale, as he is thereby put on inquiry, and
is bound to use diligence in discovering any defects in the proceedings. Having failed
to do so, petitioners cannot now be heard on their much belated plaints.

Registration in a public registry is notice to the whole world

The annotation of the certificate of sale on petitioners' Transfer Certificate of Title No.
24604 and the filing of the affidavit of consolidation with the Register of Deeds
constituted constructive notice of both acts to herein petitioners. Consequently, as
early as March 11, 1974 24 when the certificate of sale was annotated at the back of
their title, petitioners were already charged with knowledge of the foreclosure sale, yet
they still failed or refused to take the necessary steps to protect their rights over the
subject property.

Failure of the spouses to object to the reconstitution

It also bears stressing that petitioners entered their appearance in the Regional Trial
Court of Kalookan City where the petition for reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 24604 was filed by respondent bank, as shown by said court's order dated
June 11, 1986. 25 It was then incumbent on petitioners to have filed an objection or
opposition to the reconstitution if they sincerely believed that the property rightfully
belongs to them. Significantly, petitioners neither moved for the reconsideration of nor
appealed from the order of the lower court granting reconstitution of title in the name
Page 6 of 23
SPS. SUICO v PNB obligations which had not yet matured on 10 March 1992 but became due by
G.R. No. 170215 | AUGUST 28, 2017 the date of the auction sale on 30 October 1992, it does not justify the
PETITION for REVIEW shortcut taken by PNB and will not excuse it from paying to the Sheriff who
PETITIONER: SPS. ESMERALDO and ELIZABETH SUICO conducted the auction sale the excess bid in the foreclosure sale. Such
RESPONDENT: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK and COURT Of APPEALS misrepresentation is fatal because in an extrajudicial foreclosure of
(ACT no. 3135 EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE) mortgage, notice of sale is jurisdictional. Any error in the notice of sale is
fatal and invalidates the notice
DOCTRINE (5) Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC. Based on records there
It is true that statutory provisions governing publication of notice of mortgage were several letters sent by the spouses to PnB expressly admitting that
foreclosure sales must be strictly complied with, and that even slight deviations their obligation amounted to P5.4M and ever made several offers to
therefrom will invalidate the notice and render the sale at least voidable. purchase back the properties at higher amounts. All those offers made by
the spouses not only contradicted their very assertion but are also indicative
It has been held that if the mortgagee is retaining more of the proceeds of the sale of the fact that they have admitted the validity of the extra judicial foreclosure
than he is entitled to, this fact alone will not affect the validity of the sale but simply proceedings and in effect have cured the impugned defect. Even assuming
give the mortgagor a cause of action to recover such surplus. that there is a surplus this fact alone will not affect the validity of the sale but
rather gives the Spouses a cause of action to recover the surplus.
FACTS
ISSUES
(1) Sps. Suico obtained a loan from PNB secured by a real estate mortgage
over their five properties. They were unable to pay this obligation leading to (1) WON there was a defect or misrepresentation in the notice leading to its
the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property. nullification? NO
(2) WON the failure of PNB to pay and tender the price of its bid or the surplus
(2) Thereafter Sps. Suico filed this present complaint to Declare Nullity of the leads to nullity? NO
Extrajudicial Foreclosure. Their contentions are:
(a) The notice of foreclosure sales stated that their outstanding loan PROVISION
obligation amounts to P1,991,770.38 as of March 10, 1992. During the
public sale, the lone bid of PNB amounted to P 8,511,000. The bid RULE 39 of the RULES of COURT:
grossly exceeded the amount of Sps. Suicos outstanding obligation as
stated in the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage. This clearly indicates SEC. 21. Judgment obligee as purchaser. When the purchaser is
a defect or misrepresentation in the notice of sheriffs sale thus the judgment obligee, and no third-party claim has been filed, he
foreclosure sale is null and void. need not pay the amount of the bid if it does not exceed the
(b) PNB as the winning bidder failed to deliver to the spouses the amount of amount of his judgment. If it does, he shall pay only the
its bid or even just the amount in excess of their obligation stated in the excess. (Emphasis supplied.)
notice. Owing to this failure the extrajudicial foreclosure conducted over
the subject properties by the Mandaue City Sheriff, as well as the
Certificate of Sale and the Certificate of Finality of Sale of the subject SEC. 39. Obligor may pay execution against obligee. After a writ of
properties issued by the Mandaue City Sheriff, in favor of PNB, were all execution against property has been issued, a person indebted to
null and void. the judgment obligor may pay to the sheriff holding the writ of
execution the amount of his debt or so much thereof as may be
(3) PNB asserted that the spouses Suico had other loans which had likewise necessary to satisfy the judgment, in the manner prescribed in
become due. The outstanding obligation of P1,991,770.38 as of 10 March section 9 of this Rule, and the sheriffs receipt shall be a sufficient
1992 was exclusive of attorneys fees, and other export related obligations discharge for the amount so paid or directed to be credited by the
which it did not consider due and demandable as of said date. judgment obligee on the execution.
(a) There is no surplus or excess since the souses regular and export-
related loans was already more than the bid price of P8,511,000.00. Rule 68, Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides:
They were well aware that their total principal outstanding obligation on
the date of the auction sale was P5,503,293.21. SEC. 4. Disposition of proceeds of sale.- The amount realized from
(b) PNB admitted the non-delivery of the bid price though to the sheriff the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property shall, after deducting
the costs of the sale, be paid to the person foreclosing the
(4) RTC ruled in favor of Sps. Suico. Given that the spouses had other loan
Page 7 of 23
mortgage, and when there shall be any balance or residue, after
paying off the mortgage debt due, the same shall be paid to NOTE: Atty. Llaguno might ask the hierarchy of the disposition of the
junior encumbrancers in the order of their priority, to be ascertained proceeds of the sale in foreclosure. Accdg to Rule 68 Sec 4, it is as follows:
by the court, or if there be no such encumbrancers or there be a
balance or residue after payment to them, then to the mortgagor or (a) first, pay the costs
his duly authorized agent, or to the person entitled to it. (b) secondly, pay off the mortgage debt
(c) thirdly, pay the junior encumbrancers, if any in the order of priority
(d) fourthly, give the balance to the mortgagor, his agent or the person
RULING & RATIO: entitled to it

(1) NO. The notice of sale in this case is valid. Petitioners failed to convince this
Court that the difference between the amount stated in the Notice of Sale
and the amount of PNBs bid resulted in discouraging or misleading bidders,
depreciated the value of the property or prevented it from commanding a fair
price.
It is true that statutory provisions governing publication of notice of mortgage
foreclosure sales must be strictly complied with, and that even slight
deviations therefrom will invalidate the notice and render the sale at least
voidable.[19] Nonetheless, we must not also lose sight of the fact that the
purpose of the publication of the Notice of Sheriffs Saleis to inform all
interested parties of the date, time and place of the foreclosure sale of the
real property subject thereof. Logically, this not only requires that the correct
date, time and place of the foreclosure sale appear in the notice, but also
that any and all interested parties be able to determine that what is about to
be sold at the foreclosure sale is the real property in which they have an
interest.[20]

Considering the purpose behind the Notice of Sheriffs Sale, we disagree with
the finding of the RTC that the discrepancy between the amount of
petitioners obligation as reflected in the Notice of Sale and the amount
actually due and collected from the petitioners at the time of the auction sale
constitute fraud which renders the extrajudicial foreclosure sale null and
void.

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; but if mistakes or
omissions occur in the notices of sale, which are calculated to deter or
mislead bidders, to depreciate the value of the property, or to prevent it from
bringing a fair price, such mistakes or omissions will be fatal to the validity of
the notice, and also to the sale made pursuant thereto.

(2) NO. It has been held that if the mortgagee is retaining more of the proceeds
of the sale than he is entitled to, this fact alone will not affect the validity of
the sale but simply give the mortgagor a cause of action to recover such
surplus.

Based on Rule 39 and Rules 68 of the Rules of Court there was no mention
of the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure being affected by the retention
of the proceeds of the sales.
Page 8 of 23
PNB vs CA - Both courts held that petitioner had lowered its appraisal of the properties for
GR # 121739 | June 14, 1999 the purpose of acquiring the properties and still collecting from respondent
Petition: Petition for Review spouses a deficiency claim. In their view, respondent spouses relied in good
Petitioner: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK faith on petitioners initial appraisal of their properties as worth P49,000.00 in
Respondent: COURT OF APPEALS, and SPOUSES EDILBERTO and ELENA mortgaging their properties on the theory that in case of their failure to pay
NATIVIDAD their loan, their properties can answer for their obligation.
- Several Factors militate against this view:
DOCTRINE o First. Based on the evidence presented, it does appear that the
reappraisal of the properties was their fair value. PNB credit
FACTS investigator, Damasco, reported:
- Sps Natividad were granted by PNB a one-year Time Loan Commercial Actual use is agricultural planted to palay, mongo & beans
(TLC) of P34,000.00. To secure the payment, Sps natividad executed REMs No visible concrete stone monuments to properly identify
over 9 parcels of land in Pangasinan. The properties were assessed and its subdivision into several lots
valued at P49,000.00, justifying the loan. Distance from residential houses: N., about 860 ms.; S.,
- Due to financial constraints, Sps Natividad were only able to pay P15,000.00 about 250 ms.; E & W., even within a radius of one km.
but failed to pay the balance despite repeated demands. are agricultural lands. Surroundings are planted to palay
- PNB foreclosed the mortgage extra judicially, after compliance with the and other secondary crops.
required publications of notices. It is about 1.2 ms. below road level. It needs refilling to be
- Public Auction sale happened, and PNB was the highest bidder at fit for residential purposes and in order not to be flooded.
P7,000.00. This was short of P64,000.00 representing the balance and when o These findings were corroborated by other inspectors.
Sps failed to redeem the properties, PNB filed a deficiency claim. o Second. Moreover, it appears that rather than being passive
- Spouses interposed that they were unable to redeem the properties because bystanders in the original appraisal of their properties, respondent
of financial hardships and that they should not be made to pay the deficit spouses actually played an active part in the valuation.
among other grounds as the aforesaid public auction sale was tainted with According to the report of PNB credit investigator
fraud and similar irregularities. Damasco, when Edilberto Natividad bought the properties
- RTC: Deficiency claim is denied and the total obligation considered fully in 1975 (the year respondent spouses mortgaged them to
paid. the bank), he did so for only P10,000.00. Yet, a few
o Properties were valued at P49,000.00, but PNB expected to be the months later, Edilberto Natividad obtained a loan from
lone bidder, and reclassified the lands which were residential, as petitioner PNB for P34,000.00, giving the same properties
agricultural. as collateral, now appraised at P49,000.00. The loan
o the downward valuation of the mortgaged property is questionable obtained was thus 69% of the appraised value of the
and unjust collateral.
o There is estoppel on the part of PNB as its downgrading of the price It seems that the increase in value of the properties from
of the properties to get an undue advantage over the Spouses, and P10,000.00 to P49,000.00 in one year was due to their
it must suffer the losses it incurred by such classification. reclassification from agricultural to residential. In his
- CA: Affirmed RTC ruling. testimony, respondent Edilberto Natividad facetiously
o It is, therefore, very evident to this Court the dubious scheme denied any knowledge why the Assessors Office made a
perpetrated by PNB was not only to keep the Sps P15,000.00 initial change in the classification of his properties from
payments, but also to grab ownership of mortgaged properties agricultural to residential.
through self-serving appraisal prejudicial to the rights of Spouses. As the person most likely to benefit from the
reclassification, it is probable that he was the one who in
Hence, this petition. fact declared the properties as residential to the Municipal
Assessors Office and had them assessed as such.
ISSUE/S Edilberto Natividad was formerly an appraiser of petitioner
1. W/N PNB is estopped from pursuing its deficiency claim arising from the PNB. More than anyone else, therefore, he knew that his
extrajudicial foreclosure against respondent spouses properties chances of obtaining a substantial loan were directly
related to the value of the properties he offered as
RULING & RATIO collateral. In fact, he admitted that he subdivided the lots
1. YES after acquiring them from Esperidion Cabanayan, Sr. and
because of that the same were classified as residential.
Page 9 of 23
o Third. Respondent spouses were benefited rather than harmed by
the substantially lower reappraised value of their properties.
while in ordinary sales for reasons of equity a transaction
may be invalidated on the ground of inadequacy of price,
or when such inadequacy shocks ones conscience as to
justify the courts to interfere, such does not follow when
the law gives to the owner the right to redeem, as when a
sale is made at public auction, upon the theory that the
lesser the price the easier it is for the owner to effect the
redemption. And so it was aptly said: When there is the
right to redeem, inadequacy of price should not be
material, because the judgment debtor may reacquire the
property or also sell his right to redeem and thus recover
the loss he claims to have suffered by reason of the price
obtained at the auction sale.

DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and respondent
spouses Edilberto and Elena Natividad are ordered to pay petitioner Philippine
National Bank the amount of P64,624.31 with interest thereon at the legal rate of
twelve percent (12%) per annum from March 31, 1983 until fully paid and P6,462.43
in attorneys fees and expenses of litigation. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Page 10 of 23
China Banking Corporation v. Ordinario (Short title) o that the assailed order the issuance of a writ of possession had
G.R. No. 121943 | 399 SCRA 430 | March 24, 2003 become final and
Petition: PETITION FOR REVIEW on certiorari o that the proceedings, being in rem, bind SPS. ORDINARIO.
Petitioner: CHINA BANKING CORPORATION - RTC denied the MR.
Respondent: SPOUSES OSCAR and LOLITA ORDINARIO -
CA: Set Aside the order of the RTC and GRANTED the MR of SPS. ORDINARIO
DOCTRINE
The purchaser in a foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the property. - CHINA BANK filed a MR but denied.
However, the possession of the foreclosed property may be awarded to the purchaser Hence, this petition.
arguendo. The adverse third party have 2 remedies. (1) terceria (2) independent
separate action to vindicate their claim of ownership over the foreclosed property. ISSUE/S

FACTS 1. W/N CHINA BANK is entitled to the possession of the property.

- CHINA BANK granted 3 loans total of P27,353,000 to Trans American


owned by SPS. Jesus and Lorelie GARCIA. RULING & RATIO
o The loans were secured by real estate mortgages constituted by
Jesus Garcia on his 45 parcels of lands. YES
- For failure of TransAmerican to pay its loans, CHINA BANK foreclosed
Under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale is
extrajudicially the real estate mortgages.
entitled to possession of the property. Thus, the writ prayed for by CHINA
o mortgaged properties were sold at public auction for
BANK granting its possession must be issued as a matter of course.
P38,004,205.01 to CHINA BANK, being the highest bidder
it is a ministerial duty of the trial court to grant such writ of possession. No
- CHINA BANK filed with the RTC, an ex parte verified petition for issuance of
discretion is left for the trial court.
a writ of possession.
Any question regarding the cancellation of the writ or in respect of the validity
o RTC granted the petition and placing CHINA BANK in possession
and regularity of the public sale should be determined in a subsequent
of the 45 parcels of land.
proceeding as outlined in Section 8 of Act No. 3135
- SPS. ORDINARIO filed a motion for reconsideration praying that their land
HOWEVER, under Section 33, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
be excluded from the order of the RTC.
as amended, the possession of the foreclosed property may be
o They alleged that:
awarded to the purchaser arguendo. The same Rule provide remedies.
They are indispensable parties in the case because they
o (1) terceria to determine whether the sheriff has rightly or wrongly
purchased the land.
taken hold of the property not belonging to the judgment debtor or
the petition for a writ of possession does not bind them for
obligor and
lack of notice
o (2) an independent separate action to vindicate their claim of
that petitioner bank should have filed an action for
ownership and/or possession over the foreclosed property
recovery of possession, not an ex-parte petition for a writ
Thus, SPS. ORDINARIOs resort to a motion for reconsideration is
of possession since there are parties in actual possession
obviously a procedural misstep.
of the lots involved
DISPOSITION
that they filed with the HLURB a complaint for the delivery
of title and damages against CHINA BANK, SPS. GARCIA
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The appealed Decision and
and TransAmerican
Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated March 20, 1995 and September 6, 1995 in
- CHINA BANK filed its opposition to the MR. it alleged that:
CA-G.R. CV No. 40953 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The orders of the RTC,
o trial court, acting as a land registration court with limited jurisdiction,
Branch 90, Quezon City, in LRC Case No. Q4534 (90) directing the issuance of a writ
cannot pass upon the merits of respondents motion
of possession in favor of petitioner bank are AFFIRMED.
o that respondents should have filed a separate action
Page 11 of 23
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Zaragoza prohibits such recovery.
GR # L-23493 | 84 SCRA 668 | August 23, 1978
Petitioner: Development Bank of the Philippines Article 2131 of the new Civil Code, on the contrary, expressly provides that The
Respondent: Jovencio A. Zaragoza and Avelina E. Zaragoza form, extent and consequences of a mortgage, both as to its constitution, modification
and extinguishment, and as to other matters not included in this Chapter, shall be
DOCTRINE governed by the provisions of the Mortgage Law and of the Land Registration Law.
Under the Mortgage Law, which is still in force, the mortgagee has the right to claim
In extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage when the proceeds of the sale is insufficient to for the deficiency resulting from the price obtained in the sale of the real property at
cover the debt, mortgagee is entitled to claim the deficiency from the debtor. public auction and the outstanding obligation at the time of the foreclosure
proceedings.
FACTS
Under the Rules of Court (Sec. 6, Rule 70), Upon the sale of any real property, under
- Spouses Zaragoza obtained a loan of P30,000 from DBP secured by real an order for a sale to satisfy a mortgage or other incumbrance thereon, if there be a
estate mortgage; to foreclose extrajudicially upon failure to pay amortization
balance due to the plaintiff after applying the proceeds of the sale, the court, upon
due
- Upon failure of spouses to pay, DBP foreclosed extrajudicially the mortgage; motion, should render a judgment against the defendant for any such balance for
Provincial Sheriff of Pangasinan posted the requisite notice of the sale at which by the record of the case, he may be personally liable to the plaintiff, x x x. It is
public auction of the mortgaged property true that this refers to a judicial foreclosure, but the underlying principle is the same,
- Property was sold at public auction to DBP being the highest bidder for
P21,035.00. that the mortgage is but a security and not a satisfaction of indebtedness.
- After applying the proceeds of the sale to satisfy the outstanding balance of
the indebtedness in the amount of P28,914.36, it was found that spouses still Thus, in respect to pledges, Article 2115 of the new Civil Code expressly states: x x
owed DBP in the amount of P7,779.36. Suit for the deficiency with x. If the price of the sale is less (than the amount of the principal obligation) neither
preliminary attachment was filed by DBP against spouses.
shall the creditor be entitled to recover the deficiency, notwithstanding any stipulation
- Spouses averred that after an extrajudicial foreclosure of property, no
deficiency judgment would lie to the contrary. Likewise, in the event of a foreclosure of a chattel mortgage on the
- Trial Court ruled for DBP thing sold in installments he (the vendor) shall have no further action against the
- Spouses went straight to SC being a question of law. purchaser to recover any unpaid balance of the price. Any agreement to the contrary
shall be void. (Article 1484, paragraph 3, ibid.). It is then clear that in the absence of
a similar provision in Act No. 3135, as amended, it cannot be concluded that the
ISSUE/S creditor loses his right given him under the Mortgage Law and recognized in the
Rules of Court, to take action for the recovery of any unpaid balance on the principal
Whether or not the mortgagee is entitled to claim the deficiency in extrajudicial
obligation, simply because he has chosen to foreclose his mortgage extrajudically x x
foreclosure of mortgage - YES
x
RULING & RATIO
DISPOSITION
YES.
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against
appellants
In extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, where the proceeds of the sale is insufficient
to cover the debt, the mortgagee is entitled to claim the deficiency from the debtor.
NOTES
Citing Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Tomas de Vera
ADDITIONAL MATTER
A reading of the provisions of Act No. 3135, as amended (re extrajudicial foreclosure)
Extrajudicial forclosure was done on Dec 10, 1952, but actual sale was only done on
discuss nothing, it is true, as to the mortgagees right to recover such deficiency. But
June 10, 1957.
neither do we find any provision thereunder which expressly or impliedly
Page 12 of 23
Additional issue: whether or not additional interests are properly chargeable on the

balance of the indebtedness during the period from notice of sale to actual sale

YES.

The seemingly long interval between the date of issuance of the Sheriffs Notice

of Sale and the date of sale was due to the numerous transfers made of the date of
the sale upon requests of the appellants themselves

Each transfer is covered by a corresponding agreement for postponement, executed

jointly by DBP and spouses. Certainly, under such circumstances, spouses cannot
take advantage of the delay which was their own making, to the prejudice of the other
party. Apart from this consideration, it must be noted that a foreclosure of mortgage
means the termination of all rights of the mortgagor in the property covered by the
mortgage. It denotes the procedure adopted by the mortgagee to terminate the rights
of the mortgagor on the property and includes the sale itself. In judicial foreclosures,
the foreclosure is not complete until the Sheriffs Certificate is executed,
acknowledged and recorded. In the absence of a Certificate of Sale, no title

passes by the foreclosure proceedings to the vendee.3 It is only when the foreclosure
proceedings are completed and the mortgaged property sold to the purchaser that all

interests of the mortgagor are cut off from the property. This principle is applicable to
extrajudicial foreclosures. Consequently, in the case at bar, prior to the completion of

the foreclosure, the mortgagor is, therefore, liable for the interest on the mortgage.

Page 13 of 23
LIMPIN vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT Sarmiento then wrote to Ponce offering P2.6 million as redemption price for the
G.R. No. L-70987 SEPTEMBER 29, 1988 two lots.
PETITIONERS: Limpin and Sarmiento
PRIVATE RESPONDENT: Ponce Ponce refused and averred that the period within which could have exercised such
right had lapsed. According to Ponce, from October 17, 1982, when Sarmientos
FACTS: Two lots were mortgaged together with another two lots (4 in all), were predecessor-in-interest defaulted in their obligations over the mortgaged
originally mortgaged in 1973 to private respondent Ponce by their former owners, properties up to June 17, 1987, when the trial court confirmed the auction sale of
the spouses Aquino. those properties.

These two lots were afterwards sold in 1978 by spouses Aquino to Butuan Bay ISSUE: Whether or not the equity of redemption recognized in favor of petitioner
Wood Export Corporation. Against this corporation herein petitioner Limpin Rogelio M. Sarmiento in this Courts judgment promulgated on January 30, 1987,
obtained a money judgment in 1979. still subsists and may be exercised, more than a year after that judgment had
become final and executory.
In order to satisfy the judgment, the two lots were levied on and sold to a public
auction in 1980. Limpin as the highest bidder. Limpin later sold the lot to his co-
petitioner Sarmiento. HELD/DISPOSITION: No, the equity redemption claimed and invoked by
Sarmiento over the properties had already lapsed and ceased to exist without
Before the levy was made on the two lots, Ponce had initiated judicial proceedings having been properly exercised. On June 17, 1987 with the issuance of the trial
for the foreclosure of the mortgage over said two lots together with the two others court of the order confirming the sheriffs sale of said properties, in favor of Ponce.
mortgaged to him.
RATIO: The equity of redemption is, to be sure, different from and should not be
Judgment was rendered in favor of Ponce and became final and at the ensuing confused with the right of redemption. The right of redemption in relation to a
foreclosure sale, the lots were acquired by Ponce himself as highest bidder. Ponce mortgage understood in the sense of a prerogative to re-acquire mortgaged
then moved for confirmation of the foreclosure sale, but the Court confirmed the property after registration of the foreclosure sale exists only in the case of the
sale of only two lots, refusing to do so as regards the two which had been subject extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. No such right is recognized in a judicial
of the execution sale in Limpins favor. foreclosure except only where the mortgagee is the Philippine National Bank or a
bank or banking institution.
Ponce instituted a special civil action in the IAC, impleading Limpin and
Sarmiento as indispensable parties. The Court rendered judgment in favor of Where a mortgage is foreclosed extrajudicially, Act 3135 grants to the
Ponce. mortgagor the right of redemption within one (1) year from the registration of the
sheriffs certificate of foreclosure sale.
On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the IAC decision and ordered the trial
court to issue a writ of possession in favor of Ponce subject to equity of redemption Where the foreclosure is judicially effected, no equivalent right of redemption
of Sarmiento exists. The law declares that a judicial foreclosure sale, when confirmed by an
order of the court, shall operate to divest the rights of all the parties to the action
Sarmiento did not try to exercise his right to equity of redemption before the and to vest their rights in the purchaser, subject to such rights of redemption as
confirmation of the foreclosure sale. Instead he instituted no less than two actions may he allowed by law. Such rights exceptionally allowed by law (i.e., even
in the RTC attempting to relitigate the same issues which the court and the IAC after confirmation by an order of the court) are those granted by the charter of the
had already passed upon and resolved. Philippine National Bank (Acts No. 2747 and 2938), and the General Banking Act
(R.A. 337). These laws confer on the mortgagor, his successors in interest or any
After nine months or so after entry of the judgment recognizing his equity of judgment creditor of the mortgagor, the right to redeem the property sold on
redemption as successor-in-interest of the original mortgagors, Sarmiento finally foreclosure after confirmation by the court of the foreclosure sale which right may
attempt to exercise his unforeclosed equity of redemption. He also filed a motion be exercised within a period of one (1) year, counted from the date of registration
with the Court manifesting that he would exercise the right and asked the Court of the certificate of sale in the Registry of Property.
to fix the redemption price.
But, to repeat, no such right of redemption exists in case of judicial foreclosure of
a mortgage if the mortgagee is not the PNB or a bank or banking institution. In
such a case, the foreclosure sale, when confirmed by an order of the court, shall
Page 14 of 23
operate to divest the rights of all the parties to the action and to vest their rights
in the purchaser. There then exists only what is known as the equity of
redemption. This is simply the right of the defendant mortgagor to extinguish
the mortgage and retain ownership of the property by paying the secured debt
within the 90-day period after the judgment becomes final in accordance with the
Rule 68 or even after the foreclosure sale but prior to its confirmation.

Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, the plain intendment of the
Intermediate Appellate Court was to give to Sarmiento, not the unforeclosed
equity of redemption pertaining to a stranger to the foreclosure suit, but the same
equity of redemption possessed by the mortgagor himself. The judgment cannot
be construed as contemplating or requiring the institution of a separate suit by
Ponce to compel Sarmiento to exercise his unforeclosed equity of redemption, or
as granting Sarmiento the option to redeem at any time that he pleases, subject
only to prescription. This would give rise to that multiplicity of proceedings which
the law eschews. The judgment plainly intended that Sarmiento exercise his
option to redeem, as successor of the mortgagor.

Upon the facts on record, Sarmiento cannot be heard to complain of denial of due
process for alleged lack of notice of any motion or hearing for confirmation of sale.
The Decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court which he and his predecessor,
Limpin, had appealed to this Court specifically ordered the Trial Court to confirm
the judicial foreclosure sale in favor of Ponce over the two lots.

Page 15 of 23
Sps. Landrito v. CA (Short title) - RTC: Granted the motion to dismiss and accordingly dismissed the
GR # 133079 | August 9, 2005 complaint, saying that the cause of action, if any, is already barred by laches
Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on account of their failure or neglect for an unreasonable length of time to do
Petitioner: Sps. Maximo Landrito, Jr. and Pacita Edgalani that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done
Respondent: The Honorable Court of Appeals; Sps. Benjamin San Diego and earlier and that Sps. Landrito's inaction constituted a waiver on their part.
Carmencita San Diego; The Ex-Officio Sheriff and Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial - CA: Affirmed in toto the trial courts order of dismissal and denied the MR.
Court, Makati City; and The Register Of Deeds, Makati City - Thus, this petition

FACTS ISSUE/S
- Sps. Landrito obtained a loan of P350K from San Diego with a deed of real 2. W/N CA erred in dismissing the complaint
estate mortgage over their parcel of land located at Muntinlupa, Rizal.
- After making substantial payments, they again obtained and were granted by RULING & RATIO
San Diego an additional loan of P1M and the parties executed an 2. NO
Amendment of REM, where they stipulated that the loan shall be paid within - The records show that at the time of the foreclosure sale, Sps. Landrito were
6 months or the mortgagee shall have the right to declare the mortgage due already in default in their loan obligation and that much earlier, a final notice
and may immediately foreclose the same judicially or extrajudicially. of demand for payment had been sent to them, despite which they still failed
- They defaulted in paying their loan and continuously refused to comply with to pay which resulted to to the extrajudicial foreclosure.
their obligation despite repeated demands prompting San Diego to send a - The rule is that in real estate mortgage, when the principal obligation is not
final notice requiring them to settle their obligation amounting to P1.9M paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose on the mortgage
- After efforts to collect proved futile, San Diego filed with the Office of the and to have the mortgaged property seized and sold with the view of
Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of RTC-Makati, a petition for the applying the proceeds thereof to the payment of the obligation.
extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. - In this case, the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure was virtually
- The office sent to the parties a Notice of Sheriffs Sale, therein announcing confirmed by the RTC when it dismissed the complaint coupled with the fact
that the mortgaged property will be sold in a public auction and copies of that Sps. Landrito failed to exercise their right of redemption within the 1-
which notice were posted in several conspicuous places. year period.
- The public auction sale was held and the property was sold to San Diego as - Sps. Landrito however alleged that they did not avail of their redemption right
the highest bidder for P2M as evidenced by the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale. because San Diego bloated their original loan of P1M to P1.9M and that the
- San Diego then caused the registration of the certificate of sale with the CA, in sustaining the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, thereby go
Office of the Register of Deeds and duly inscribed on the same date at the against the established jurisprudence that an action for foreclosure must be
dorsal side of the Lanrdito's TCT. limited to the amount mentioned in the mortgage document (P1M).
- With the Sps. Landrito having failed to redeem their property within the 1- - SC do not take issue with such submission that a mortgage may be
year redemption period from the date of inscription of the sheriffs certificate foreclosed only for the amount appearing in the mortgage document, more
of sale, as provided for in Act No. 3135, as amended, the San Diegos so the mortgage contract is evidently silent on the payment of interest.
caused the consolidation of title over the foreclosed property in their names. - The law on redemption of mortgaged property is clear. Section 6 of RA 3135
- Sps. Landrito then filed before the RTC Makati a complaint for annulment of provides that in all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made, the debtor,
the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale, with damages. his successors in interest or any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of said
o They alleged that (1) said foreclosure and auction sale were null debtor, or any person having a lien on the property subsequent to the
and void for failure to comply with the requirements of notice and mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold, may redeem the
publication (2) the mortgaged property was illegally foreclosed same at any time within the term of one year from and after the date of the
based on the settled rule that an action to foreclose a mortgage sale (1 year redemption)
must be limited to the amount mentioned in the mortgage which - Jurisprudence provide that the one-year redemption period should be
was allegedly bloated by respondent Carmencita San Diego and (3) counted not from the date of foreclosure sale, but from the time the
the application for consolidation of title was premature because certificate of sale is registered with the Register of Deeds.
Benjamin San Diego granted them an extension for redemption. - It is clear that even the complaint filed by Sps. Landrito with the trial court on
- Sps. San Diego interposed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that said complaint was instituted beyond the 1-year redemption period. In fact, they
failed to state a cause of action as no primary right of the petitioners had acknowledged that their complaint for annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure
been violated since they actually failed to exercise their right of redemption and auction sale was filed about eleven (11) days after the redemption
within the one-year redemption period, adding that Sps. Landrito never took period had already expired.
any action which may stall the running of the same period, thereby leaving - They merely harp on the alleged increase in the redemption price of the
them no further right or interest in the property in question. mortgaged property as the reason for their failure to redeem the same.
Page 16 of 23
However, and as already pointed out herein, they chose not, despite notice,
to appear during the foreclosure proceedings.
- Even assuming that an extension was given to them, no time at all did they
make a valid offer to redeem coupled with a tender of the redemption price.
- Jurisprudence made it clear that it is only where, by voluntary agreement of
the parties, consisting of extensions of the redemption period, followed by
commitment by the debtor to pay the redemption price at a fixed date, will
the concept of legal redemption be converted into one of conventional
redemption.
- Here, there is no showing whatsoever tht Spouse Landrito agreed to pay the
redemption price as allegedly set by Mrs. San Diegos husband. On the
contrary, their act of filing their complaint to declare the nullity of the
foreclosure sale is indicative of their refusal to pay the redemption price on
the alleged deadline set by the husband.
- At the very least, if they so believed that their loan obligation was only for
P1M, they should have made an offer to redeem within 1 year from the
registration of the sheriffs certificate of sale, together with a tender of the
same amount.
- The period of redemption is not a prescriptive period but a condition
precedent provided by law to restrict the right of the person exercising
redemption. Correspondingly, if a person exercising the right of redemption
has offered to redeem the property within the period fixed, he is considered
to have complied with the condition precedent prescribed by law and may
thereafter bring an action to enforce redemption.
- The period within which to redeem the property sold at a sheriffs sale is not
suspended by the institution of an action to annul the foreclosure sale. It is
clearthat Spouses Landrito have lost any right or interest over the subject
property primarily because of their failure to redeem the same in the manner
and within the period prescribed by law.

DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the challenged decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

Page 17 of 23
Uypitching v. Quiamco o Petitioners appealed the RTC decision but the CA affirmed the trial
Petitioner: Ernesto Ramas Uypitching and Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc. courts decision.
Respondent: Ernesto Quiamco Hence, this petition.
510 SCRA 172 | G.R. No. 146322
ISSUE/S
DOCTRINE - W/N the filing of a complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-
There is a well-defined procedure for the recovery of possession of mortgaged Fencing Law warranted the award of moral damages, exemplary damages,
property: if a mortgagee is unable to obtain possession of a mortgaged property for its attorneys fees and costs in favor of respondent. - YES
sale of foreclosure, he must bring a civil action either to recover such possession as a
preliminary step to the sale, or to obtain judicial foreclosure. PROVISIONS
Art. 19. Every person must in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his
FACTS duties, act with justice, give every one his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
In 1982, respondent Ernesto C. Quiamco was approached by Juan Davalan,2
Josefino Gabutero and Raul Generoso to amicably settle the civil aspect of a RULING & RATIO
criminal case for robbery3 filed by Quiamco against them. - YES
o They surrendered to him a red Honda motorcycle and a photocopy - They were held liable for damages not only for instituting a groundless
of its certificate of registration. Respondent asked for the original complaint against respondent but also for making a slanderous remark and
certificate of registration but the three accused never came to see for taking the motorcycle from respondents establishment in an abusive
him again. Meanwhile, the motorcycle was parked in an open manner . Petitioners Abused Their Right of Recovery as Mortgagee(s)
space inside respondents business establishment, where it was o A mortgagee may take steps to recover the mortgaged property to
visible and accessible to the public. enable it to enforce or protect its foreclosure right there on. There
o It turned out that, in October 1981, the motorcycle had been sold on is, however, a well-defined procedure for the recovery of
installment basis to Gabutero by Uypitching Sons, Inc. And to possession of mortgaged property: if a mortgagee is unable to
secure its payment, the motorcycle was mortgaged to petitioner obtain possession of a mortgaged property for its sale on
corporation. foreclosure, he must bring a civil action either to recover such
possession as a preliminary step to the sale, or to obtain judicial
When Gabutero could no longer pay the installments, Davalan assumed the
foreclosure.
obligation and continued the payments.
o In September 1982, however, Davalan stopped paying the o Petitioner corporation failed to bring the proper civil action
necessary to acquire legal possession of the motorcycle. Instead,
remaining installments. Nine years later, petitioner Uypitching,
petitioner Uypitching descended on respondents establishment
accompanied by policemen, went to Avesco-AVNE Enterprises to
with his policemen and ordered the seizure of the motorcycle
recover the motorcycle.
without a search warrant or court order. Worse, in the course of
o The leader of the police team talked to the clerk in charge and the illegal seizure of the motorcycle, petitioner Uypitching even
asked for respondent. While P/Lt. Vendiola and the clerk were mouthed a slanderous statement.
talking, petitioner Uypitching paced back and forth inside the
establishment uttering "Quiamco is a thief of a motorcycle."
- Petitioners acts violated the law as well as public morals, and transgressed
the proper norms of human relations.
o Unable to find respondent, the policemen on petitioner Uypitchings a. The basic principle of human relations, embodied in Article 19 of
instructionand over the clerks objection, took the motorcycle. the Civil Code .Article 19, also known as the "principle of abuse of
Petitioner Uypitching filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft right," prescribes that a person should not use his right unjustly or
and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law against respondent but contrary to honesty and good faith ,otherwise he opens himself to
was dismissed. liability. There is an abuse of right when it is exercised solely to
Respondent filed an action for damages against petitioners in the RTC prejudice or injure another.
o The trial court rendered a decision finding that petitioner Uypitching 2. In this case, the manner by which the motorcycle was taken at petitioners
was motivated with malice and ill will when he called respondent a instance was not only attended by bad faith but also contrary to the
thief, took the motorcycle in an abusive manner and filed a procedure laid down by law. Considered in conjunction with the defamatory
baseless complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti- statement, petitioners exercise of the right to recover the mortgaged
Fencing Law vehicle was utterly prejudicial and injurious to respondent.

Page 18 of 23
RAYO vs METROBANK ISSUE:
G.R. No. 165142 December 10, 2007
Petition: PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT 1. W/N Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is in violation of the constitutional guaranty to
Petitioner: EDUARDO L. RAYO due process.
Respondent: METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY AND
BRANCH 223 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY
RULING:
DOCTRINE: EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE
1. No.
FACTS: There was no violation of petitioners right to constitutional due process. The issuance
1) Midas, thru its president, Mr. Samuel U. Lee, obtained six loans from of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in a foreclosure sale of a mortgaged
Metrobank amounting to P588, 870,000 as evidenced by promissory notes. property under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended is a ministerial duty of the
To secure the payment of an P8, 000,000 loan, Louisville Realty, thru its court. The purchaser of the foreclosed property, upon ex parte application and the
president, Mr. Samuel U. Lee, executed in favor of Metrobank, a real estate posting of the required bond, has the right to acquire possession of the foreclosed
mortgage over three parcels of land. property during the 12-month redemption period and with more reason, after the
2) When the debtor-mortgagor failed to pay, Metrobank extra-judicially expiration of the redemption period.
foreclosed the real estate mortgage. Thereafter, in a public auction,
Metrobank was the highest bidder. When Louisville refused to turn over the An ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession under Section 7 of Act
real properties, on March 17, 2001, Metrobank filed before the RTC Branch No. 3135 is not, strictly speaking, a judicial process as contemplated in Article 433 of
223, Quezon City, an ex parte-petition for the issuance of a writ of the Civil Code. It is a judicial proceeding for the enforcement of ones right of
possession and the same was granted. possession as purchaser in a foreclosure sale. It is a non-litigious proceeding
3) Metrobank posted the required bond. Consequently, a writ of possession authorized in an extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage pursuant to Act No. 3135, as
was issued on October 9, 2001. amended, and is brought for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or
4) On April 3, 2002, petitioner Eduardo L. Rayo filed a complaint against consent by any person adversely interested. It is a proceeding where the relief is
Metrobank for Nullification of Real Estate Mortgage Contract(s) and granted without requiring an opportunity for the person against whom the relief is
Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale. sought to be heard. No notice is needed to be served upon persons interested in the
5) On May 13, 2004, Rayo filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for subject property.
Annulment of Judgment on the ground of absolute lack of due process.
Petitioner alleged that his predecessor, Louisville, was not notified of the Just in case Atty. Llaguno ask for the remedial issue on W/N Rayo is a real party-in-
proceedings and that Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is unconstitutional. interest. The court ruled that petitioner has no present substantial interest to institute
CA RULING: It denied the petition for lack of merit. Petitioner is neither the registered the annulment of judgment proceedings and nullify the order granting the writ of
owner nor the successor-in-interest of the registered owner; hence, not a real party- possession. The court recognized Rayo as the co-assignee of the subject real
in-interest. It also ruled that there is no basis to challenge the constitutionality of properties as shown in the March 25, 2002 deed of assignment. However, while
Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended as it constitutes a collateral attack against petitioner would be injured by the judgment in this suit, the court found that petitioner
said provision. Petitioner sought reconsideration, but was likewise denied. has no present substantial interest to institute the annulment of judgment proceedings
and nullify the order granting the writ of possession.
Rayo insists he has legal personality to institute annulment of judgment case against
Metrobank because he is a co-assignee over the subject real properties. DISPOSITION:

Metrobank claims that it was not a party to the deed of assignment among Louisville, WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Resolutions
Chua and petitioner, hence, it has no privity of contract with petitioner Rayo. dated June 15, 2004 and August 23, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
Moreover, Metrobank points out that the real properties had already been 83895 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
extrajudicially foreclosed when petitioner and his assignors executed the deed of
assignment.

Page 19 of 23
ROXAS v BUAN property, Roxas filed a Motion for Reconsideration and subsequently the
G.R. No. L-53798 I NOVEMBER 8, 1988 present petition.
PETITION for CERTIORARI and PROHIBITION with PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
PETITIONER: ALBERTO C. ROXAS and NENITA DE GUIA CONTENTION of ROXAS:
RESPONDENT: MARINA BUAN (PRIVATE) The respondent court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBALES, BRANCH 1 jurisdiction in issuing the order complained of, upon the theory that it was predicated
THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ZAMBALES THRU HIS DEPUTY, upon a writ of possession which was ineffective as against them, being third parties.
ATILANO G. NANQUIL Thus, the order is null and void. They also insist that the private respondent should
file an independent action to recover the property, otherwise, there will be a violation
(ACT no. 3135 EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE) of due process of law if they are not given their day in court to prove their adverse
claim
DOCTRINE
In the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages, possession of the property ISSUES
may be awarded to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale during the pendency of the (1) WON the Buan should file an independent action to recover the property? -
period of redemption under the terms provided in Sec. 6 of Act 3135, as amended (An NO
Act to Regulate the Sale of Property Under Special Powers Inserted In or Annexed to
Real Estate Mortgages), or after the lapse of the redemption period, without need of a RULING & RATIO:
separate and independent action.
(1) No. Roxas is not a party actually holding the property adversely to the
Under Sec. 35, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, which was made applicable to debtor, Arcadio Valentin. Roxas' possession of the property was premised
the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages by Sec. 6 Act No. 3135, the on its alleged sale to him by Valentin for the amount of P100,000.00.
possession of the mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in extrajudicial Assuming this to be true, it is readily apparent that Roxas holds title to and
foreclosures "unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the possesses the property as Valentin's transferee. Any right he has to the
judgment debtor." property is necessarily derived from that of Valentin. As transferee, he steps
into the latter's shoes. Roxas is therefore the successor-in-interest of
FACTS Valentin, to whom the latter had conveyed his interest in the property for the
purpose of redemption.
(1) Arcadio Valentin and Marina Buan entered into a contract of loan secured by
a REM on Valentins residential house. Upon failure of Valentin to pay, an In the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages, possession of the
extrajudicial proceeding was instituted, Marian Buan being the highest property may be awarded to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale during the
bidder. pendency of the period of redemption under the terms provided in Sec. 6 of
(2) Valentin had a period of one (1) year from the date of registration within Act 3135, as amended (An Act to Regulate the Sale of Property Under
which to redeem the mortgaged properties. The period for the redemption of Special Powers Inserted In or Annexed to Real Estate Mortgages), or after
the property in question having expired without the property being redeemed the lapse of the redemption period, without need of a separate and
by Valentin. independent action.This is founded on his right of ownership over the
(3) Despite expiration of the redemption period, Valentin failed to deliver property which he purchased at the auction sale and his consequent right to
possession prompting Buan to file for a Petition for the issuance of a Writ of be placed in possession thereof.
Possession which was not contested and thus granted by the court.
(4) Execution of the writ of possession was not successful since it was found out This rule is, however, not without exception. Under Sec. 35, Rule 39 of the
that Atty. Roxas and De Guia is occupying the property and refused to Revised Rules of Court, which was made applicable to the extrajudicial
vacate. Roxas alleged that they had purchased the property from Valentin. foreclosure of real estate mortgages by Sec. 6 Act No. 3135, the possession
(5) In the present case, Buan filed a Motion for Contempt for Roxas and De of the mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in extrajudicial
Guias refusal to abide by the writ of possession. Roxas argued that they foreclosures "unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to
cannot be held guilty of contempt of court because they were not made the judgment debtor."
parties to the main action.

RTC: Denied the Motion for Contempt but ordered Roxas and De Guia to vacate the
premises under pain of contempt.

(6) Disagreeing with the portion of the order directing them to vacate the
Page 20 of 23
Sps Samson vs Rivera - Sps Samson and Rempson Realty filed with the CA a Petition for certiorari,
GR # 154355 | May 20,2004 with prohibition and mandamus.
Petition: Petition for Review - CA: Denied
Petitioner: Spouses REMPSON SAMSON and MILAGROS SAMSON; and o there was an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Citing
REMPSON REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Section 8 of Act No. 3135, it opined that petitioners remedy was to
Respondent: Judge MAURICIO M. RIVERA, in His Capacity as Presiding Judge of file a petition to set aside the foreclosure sale and to cancel the writ
the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 73; Atty. JOSELITA MALIBAGO- of possession in LR Case
SANTOS, in Her Capacity as Ex Officio Sheriff, RTC of Antipolo City; and LENJUL o certiorari was premature inasmuch as petitioners had failed to file a
REALTY CORPORATION motion for reconsideration of the Order directing the issuance of the
writ of possession.
DOCTRINE
Hence, this petition.
FACTS
- Spouses Rempson and Milagros Samson incurred from Far East Bank and ISSUE/S
Trust Company (FEBTC) loan obligations, amounting to P55 million. To 3. W/N the issuance of the writ of possession was proper
secure the payment of the loan obligations, Spouses Samson executed in
favor of FEBTC two real estate mortgages covering five parcels of PROVISIONS
commercial property located at Antipolo City, Rizal. They failed to pay.
- FEBTC filed an Application for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate RULING & RATIO
Mortgage in the clerk of Court of the RTC in Antipolo, to satisfy the debt 3. YES
amounting to P72 million inclusive of charges and penalties. a. The issuance of the Writ is explicitly authorized by Act 3135, which
- The clerk of court issued a Notice of Sheriff Sale. There was only one bidder regulates the methods of effecting an extrajudicial foreclosure of
during the foreclosure sale, and so the sheriff postponed the auction. mortgage.
- On July 5, 2000, the auction sale proceeded with two bidders participating -- i. Section 7 of the Act provides: In any sale made under the
FEBTC and Lenjul Realty and Development Corporation, with the latter provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the [Regional
declared as the highest bidder in the amount of eighty million pesos Trial Court] where the property or any part thereof is situated,
(P80,000,000). Certificate of Sheriffs Sale was issued and registered with to give him possession thereof during the redemption
the registry of deeds, and new certificates of title were issued. period..
- Lenjul Realty filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession, which b. Under the provision cited above, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale
sought an ex parte issuance of a writ of possession over the foreclosed may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period by filing
properties. for that purpose an ex parte motion under oath, in the corresponding
- While the Petition was pending, Spouses Samson and Rempson registration or cadastral proceeding in the case of a property with
Corporation filed with the Antipolo City RTC, an action for Annulment of torrens title. Upon the filing of such motion and the approval of the
Extra-Judicial Foreclosure and/or Nullification of Sale and the Certificates of corresponding bond, the court is expressly directed to issue the writ.
Title, plus Reconveyance and Damages with Prayer for a Temporary c. This Court has consistently held that the duty of the trial court to grant a
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. writ of possession is ministerial. Such writ issues as a matter of course
- Judge Caballes (judge in the annulment) issued an Order directing the upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the
consolidation of the civil case with the land registration case. corresponding bond. No discretion is left to the trial court.
- Judge Rivera (judge in the possession petition) issued an order denying the d. Questions regarding the validity of the sale cannot be raised to oppose
consolidation of the Petition for Writ of Possession and the civil case for the issuance of the writ.
annulment of foreclosure. e. At any time following the consolidation of ownership and the issuance of
- Judge Rivera gave due course to the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of a new transfer certificate of title in the name of the purchaser (which
Possession and denied the Opposition of Spouses Samson and Rempson happened in the case), he or she is even more entitled to possession of
Corporation. the property.
- Judge Rivera denied reconsideration. f. This Court has long settled that a pending action for annulment of
- Judge Rivera issued an Order granting petitioners Motion for mortgage or foreclosure does not stay the issuance of a writ of
Reconsideration with regard to the September 18, 2001 Order denying the possession. Therefore, the contention of petitioners that the RTC should
consolidation of cases. have consolidated Civil Case No. 01-6219 with LR Case No. 01-2698
- Writ of possession was issued by the sheriff of Antipolo RTC to place Lenjul and resolved the annulment case prior to the issuance of the Writ of
in physical possession. Possession is unavailing.
Page 21 of 23
Tizon v. Valdez (Short title) TIZON contentions:
G.R. No. 24797 | 48 Phil. 910 | March 16, 1926
Petition: APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac. - Tizons mortgage does not set forth the fact of the existence of the
Petitioner: DOMICIANO TIZON previous mortgage. Thus, TIZONs mortgage should not be
Respondent: EMILIANO J. VALDEZ and LUIS MORALES, sheriff of the Province denominated a second mortgage
of Tarlac, - The election of VALDEZ to proceed against the SIBAL in an ordinary civil
action constituted a waiver of his rights under the mortgage
DOCTRINE
ISSUE/S
After a first mortgage is executed there remains in the mortgagor a mere right of
redemption, and only this right passes to the second mortgagee by virtue of the 1. W/N TIZONs mortgage is superior to VALDEZs by not stating the fact of the
second mortgage. existence of a previous mortgage.
2. W/N VALDEZ by instituting a Civil action constitutes a waiver of his right under
FACTS the mortgage.

- The personal property of Leon SIBAL was mortgaged to VALDEZ and was RULING & RATIO
duly registered in the registry of chattel mortgage.
- SIBAL then again mortgaged the same chattels to TIZON 1. NO.
- SIBAL defaulted in the making of payment, and VALDEZ thereupon
instituted a civil action to recover the indebtedness, in connection with which TIZONs mortgage does not set forth the fact of the existence of the previous
he sued out a writ of attachment and caused the same to be levied upon the mortgage. Thus, mortgage should not be denominated a second mortgage.
property. But it is certainly not a first mortgage, and it is inferior to VALDEZs
o However, the property was not retained by the attaching office mortgage because executed subsequent to the date when VALDEZs
because TIZON gave a counter bond and lifted the attachment. mortgage was put of record.
o VALDEZ won the civil action. Thus, he caused an execution to be The violation of law by the mortgagor in failing to mention in the second
issued and levied the property in question. mortgage the existence of the prior mortgage made him amenable to the
- Meanwhile, TIZON in a foreclosure proceeding conducted in conformity with penal provision contained in section 12 of the Chattel Mortgage Law
the provisions of the chattel mortgage law, foreclosed the property. but could not affect the priority of the earlier mortgage.
o TIZON becoming purchaser for the consideration of P1,000. As 2. NO
purchaser at his own foreclosure sale, TIZON assumed possession
of the property. In Green v. Bass Supreme Court of Ohio, held that:
- When the sheriff levied upon the property, the property was in the o the owner of a senior mortgage does not waive the priority of
possession of TIZON. his lien by recovering a judgment on the note which it secures
o TIZON filed a claim with the sheriff, asserting that the property and causing execution to be levied on the mortgaged chattels.
belonged to him and was not liable to be taken upon an execution Upon suing out an attachment under section 426 of the Code of Civil
directed against SIBAL. Procedure the creditor is required to make oath that he has no other
- The sheriff, under indemnity from VALDEZ, retained the property and sold it sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action.
in due course at an execution sale, VALDEZ becoming purchaser at the o the creditor is not required to state peremptorily under oath that he
price of P500. has no other security at all but only that he has no other
o Pursuant to this sale VALDEZ now took possession. sufficient security. Thus, such affidavit does not waive the
Hence, this petition. mortgage lien.
The first mortgage in favor of Valdez continues to subsist unaffected by what
happened because of the civil action.

Page 22 of 23
NOTE: Effect of foreclosure on second mortgage

- After a first mortgage is executed there remains in the mortgagor a mere


right of redemption, and only this right passes to the second mortgagee by
virtue of the second mortgage.
- As between the first and second mortgagees, therefore, the second
mortgagee has at most only the right to redeem, and even when the second
mortgagee goes through the formality of an extrajudicial foreclosure, the
purchaser acquires no more than the right of redemption from the first
mortgagee.

DISPOSITION

For the reasons stated the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, and it is so
ordered, with costs against the appellant.

Page 23 of 23

You might also like