Case Digest (A.M. No. P-12-3032)
Facts:
Luisa Guanco, assisted by her husband, Leonardo Guanco, petitioner, v. Isidro Antolo, respondent, G.R. No. 150852, July 31, 2006, the Supreme Court First Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Isidro Antolo obtained a P600 loan from the Rural Bank of Sibalom (RBS) secured by a real estate mortgage on a titled parcel (TCT No. N-10216) executed July 19, 1976; a promissory note matured April 21, 1977. Antolo left for Bacolod and did not leave a forwarding address. RBS sent demand letters (March 5, May 10 and June 21, 1977) warning of foreclosure if unpaid; Antolo did not pay on maturity. RBS’s records later showed payment on August 29, 1977 (Official Receipt No. 5280) and release of the owner’s duplicate; Antolo disputed having authorized any release and pursued verification with the Central Bank, which confirmed RBS’s records indicating payment and alleged release.
Antolo discovered at the Register of Deeds that TCT No. N-10216 had been cancelled after a Certificate of Sale by the Provincial Sheriff (through Deputy Sheriff Bonifacio L. Alvior) reciting a public auction on August 19, 1977 in favor of Luisa Guanco for P775.00, a Final Deed of Sale executed August 28, 1978 (reciting conveyance for P930.00), and issuance of TCT No. 12131 in Guanco’s name on October 9, 1978. Guanco had declared taxes and paid realty taxes under her name.
On November 4, 1986 Antolo filed suit against the Guancos, Deputy Sheriff Alvior and RBS for annulment of the sheriff’s sale, reconveyance and damages. At trial the Guancos claimed purchase in good faith; RBS maintained its records showed payment and release. Evidence showed discrepancies: RBS had no copy of any petition for extrajudicial foreclosure, no release deed on file, only a machine copy of the final deed of sale, and testimony conflicted about dates and payments. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 11, Antique) on July 15, 1996 dismissed Antolo’s complaint, upheld the foreclosure sale as valid and found Antolo’s claim barred by laches, reasoning he had received the March 5, 1977 demand letter and had delayed.
Antolo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On June 7, 2001 the CA, in CA-G.R. CV No. 55863, reversed and set aside the RTC: it declared the certificate of sale (Aug. 19, 1977) and final deed (Aug. 28, 1978) null and void and ordered the Guancos to reconvey the lot to Antolo upon his payment of P930.00; the CA denied the Guancos’ m...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the sheriff’s sale and the resulting certificate of sale and final deed valid despite alleged failure to comply with statutory notice requirements for foreclosure of mortgages by rural banks?
- Were the certificate of sale and final deed void or voidable because they were procured through falsified or inconsistent sheriff’s entries and lack of a petition for foreclosure on the record?
- Was respondent Antolo’s action barred by laches or estoppel from assailing the foreclosure sale and title issuance?
- Was petitioner Luisa Guanco a purchaser in good faith entitled to re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)