Case Digest (G.R. No. 173976)
Facts:
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. Eugenio Penafiel, for himself and as Attorney-in-Fact of Erlinda Penafiel, G.R. No. 173976, February 27, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. (Metrobank) was mortgagee of two parcels of land registered under TCT No. (350937) 6195 and TCT No. 0085 owned by respondents Erlinda Penafiel and the late Romeo Penafiel. The spouses executed the mortgage on August 1, 1991, and the mortgage deed was later amended as the loan increased. After default, Metrobank instituted an extrajudicial foreclosure under Act No. 3135 on July 14, 1999 through a notary public. The Notice of Sale set the auction for September 7, 1999 and, according to the publisher’s affidavit, the notice was published in Maharlika Pilipinas on August 5, 12 and 19, 1999; copies were also posted in three conspicuous places in Mandaluyong City.
At the auction Metrobank was the sole and highest bidder; the lots were sold to it for P6,144,000.00 and a certificate of sale was issued in its favor. On August 8, 2000, respondent Erlinda Penafiel, through her attorney-in-fact Eugenio Penafiel, filed a complaint seeking annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, injunctive reliefs against consolidation of ownership and possession, and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Mandaluyong City, Branch 208, rendered judgment on June 30, 2003 declaring the extrajudicial foreclosure valid and dismissing respondents’ counterclaims.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which in a Decision dated July 29, 2005 reversed the RTC and declared the extrajudicial foreclosure sale null and void for failure to publish the notice in a newspaper of general circulation in Mandaluyong City. The CA concluded that Maharlika Pilipinas was not circulated in Mandaluyong City. Metrobank’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on July 31, 2006. Metrobank then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45, challenging (1) the CA’s alleged application of provisions on judicial notices under ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in applying provisions of P.D. No. 1079 on publication of judicial notices to an extrajudicial foreclosure by a notary public?
- Was Maharlika Pilipinas a newspaper of general circulation in Mandaluyong City for purposes of the publication requirement under Section 3, Act No. 3135?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the RTC and declaring the extrajud...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)