Facts:

The case involves EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO as the plaintiff and Alejandro Amechazurra as the defendant. The legal proceedings took place in the Court of First Instance, Occidental Negros. The plaintiff filed an action seeking to foreclose a mortgage on certain real estate, following the procedures outlined in sections 254 and subsequent sections of the Code of Civil Procedure. On September 19, 1907, the court rendered a final judgment favoring the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay a total of P52,628.02, along with interest accrued from August 12, 1907, and an additional P2,000 for costs and legal expenses. The judgment stipulated that if payment was not made by the next term of court, the mortgaged property would be sold in accordance with the law.

Notably, the defendant did not appeal this judgment. Subsequently, part of the mortgaged property was sold to Felipe Benedicto for P53,000 on December 27, 1907. The plaintiff later filed a motion to set aside this sale, conten

...

Facts:

Initiation of Foreclosure Action

• The plaintiff, El Banco Español-Filipino, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Occidental Negros.
• The purpose of the action was to foreclose a mortgage on a parcel of real estate, following the provisions of sections 254 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Judgment and Order for Sale

• On September 19, 1907, a final judgment was rendered ordering the defendant to pay P52,628.02 with interest from August 12, 1907, in addition to P2,000 for costs and expenses.
• The judgment provided that if the payment was not made on or before the first day of the next term of court, the property would be sold in accordance with law.

Execution of the Sale

• No appeal was filed by the defendant against the judgment.
• Subsequently, on December 27, 1907, a portion of the mortgaged property was sold to Felipe Benedicto for P53,000.

Motion to Set Aside the Sale

• On January 9, 1908, the plaintiff moved to set aside the sale and ordered a resale, basing the motion on the error committed by a court clerk who, by mistake, omitted a portion of the mortgaged property from the sale roster.
• The motion was granted, and a resale order was issued.

Defendant’s Response and Subsequent Proceedings

• Later on the same day the plaintiff’s motion was granted, the defendant appeared in court and moved to have the rescinding order set aside.
• The defendant’s motion was denied, and he subsequently filed a bill of exceptions.
• The judge upheld the resale order, denied the defendant’s appeal, but mentioned that the defendant could appeal if he filed a bond equal to the amount claimed in the judgment.
• The defendant failed to furnish the required security bond within the prescribed time.

Application for Compelling Signature of the Bill of Exceptions

• The defendant then applied under Article 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an order compelling the judge to sign the bill of exceptions.
• The judge explained his reasons for not signing the bill of exceptions, leading to the present issue before the appellate court.

Legal and Procedural Issues in the Foreclosure Context

• The case raises questions on whether the defendant had an inherent right to except the resale order.
• It further questions the proper timing for bringing such exceptions for review under the Code, specifically considering the stages of foreclosure proceedings.

Issue:

Right of Exception

• Does the defendant have the right to take exception to the court’s order directing a resale of the mortgaged property?
• Is such an exception valid under sections 141 and 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure even though it was raised before the final confirmation of the sale?

Timing of Review

• When is the appropriate time for the defendant to bring the exception for review to the Supreme Court?
• Does the execution stage of a foreclosure (specifically, the period before the confirmation of the sale) allow for an immediate review of exceptions under the existing procedural rules, or should such review await the confirmation decree?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)