Facts:

• The case "Cruz v. Intermediate Appellate Court" involves petitioners Epifanio Cruz and Evelina Cruz.
• They sought to reverse a decision by the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) that dismissed their petition for certiorari.
• Respondents include the Intermediate Appellate Court, Calixtro O. Adriatico, Rufino J. Santiago, and Godofredo Valmeo.
• The decision was rendered on January 9, 1989, under G.R. No. 72806, with Justice Regalado as the ponente.
• Petitioners mortgaged properties to private respondents and were sued for non-payment, leading to judicial foreclosure under Rule 68 of the Rules of Court.
• A compromise agreement was reached during the proceedings, forming the basis for the judgment on compromise by the RTC of Bulacan.
• The agreement specified payment amounts and consequences of non-payment.
• Petitioners failed to comply, leading to a writ of execution, foreclosure, and auction sale of the properties, purchased by private respondents as the highest bidders.
• The sale was judicially confirmed.
• Petitioners argued that the judgment on compromise denied them their equity of redemption, the writ of execution was invalid, there were irregularities in the notice of sale publication, and there was a subsequent agreement to redeem the property, which respondents denied.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. The court ruled that the petitioners waived their equity of redemption by entering into the compromise agreement.
2. The writ of execution was deemed valid despite a minor clerical error, which was rectified by the sheriff.
3. The court did not find sufficient evidence to support the claim of irregularities in the pub...(Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Equity of Redemption:

   • The court held that the procedural requirements of Section 2, Rule 68, which provide a 90-day period for the exercise of equity of redemption, can be modified by a valid agreement between the parties.
   • The compromise agreement specifically outlined the amounts to be paid and the consequences of non-payment, effectively waiving the petitioners' equity of redemption.
   • The court emphasized that the petitioners entered into the agreement with the assistance of competent counsel and under judicial supervision, making the waiver valid and binding.

2. Validity of Writ of Execution:

   • The court acknowledged a minor clerical error in the writ of execution issued by the Branch Clerk of Court but found that it was rectified by the sheriff.
   • The petitioners had the opportunity to challenge the writ before the confirmation of the sale but failed to do so.
   • The rectification was confirmed and adopted by the court when it confirmed the sale without any objection from the petitioners.

3. Publication of Notice of Sale:

   • The court found that the petitioners' complaints about the irregularities in the publication of the notice of sale involved questions of fact that could not be resolved by the Supreme Court.
   • The petitioners had the opportunity to raise...continue reading