G.R. No. 228919 - Palo vs. Baquirquir

Luzviminda Palo and her husband Marcelo obtained a loan of P407,000 from Takeshi Nakamura, secured by a real estate mortgage over a land in Cordova, Cebu.
The mortgage was registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-103943 in Palo's name.
The mortgage contract included a provision that if the mortgagor failed to redeem within the period, the mortgage would be foreclosed judicially or extrajudicially in accordance with law.

May 12, 2004 - Atty. Orpha T. Casul-Arendain executed a Notice of Notarial Foreclosure stating Palo's default.
Property was sold at public auction; Rey C. Baquirquir won as highest bidder.
Palo failed to redeem; her TCT was cancelled and a new title issued to Rey.

February 2009 - Palo filed suit seeking annulment of foreclosure, sale, and issuance of TCT to Rey, arguing lack of authority for extrajudicial foreclosure (no SPA granted), and alleging Rey was a dummy.
Respondents claimed validity of loan, mortgage, and foreclosure; argued no SPA needed due to mortgage contract provision authorizing foreclosure.
Nakamura denied being a moneylender, stated only P30,000 paid.

Palo filed a motion for judgment on pleas (2009), asserting respondents admitted no SPA was given, allegedly voiding foreclosure under Act No. 3135 and related laws.
Respondents argued no special formality required and cited Tang Chat v. Hodges for authority.
August 7, 2012 - RTC dismissed Palo's complaint, ruling mortgage provision allowed Nakamura to foreclose.
RTC denied Palo's motion for reconsideration (January 8, 2013).
Palo appealed to CA; CA affirmed RTC decisions, holding that lack of SPA did not preclude foreclosure as contract provision gave authority.
CA ruled issuance of judgment on pleadings meant no material issue was tendered by respondents.
November 20, 2017 - Supreme Court denied Palo's petition for review, agreeing with lower courts.

Palo argued the mortgage did not name authorized forecloser, violating Act No. 3135.
She claimed extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale were void and upholding them would violate due process.

Whether the foreclosure provision in the mortgage contract granted the mortgagee the special power to extrajudicially foreclose and sell the mortgaged property without a special power of attorney (SPA).

Whether the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale to Rey Baquirquir were valid despite the absence of an express special power of sale granted to the mortgagee.

Whether upholding the foreclosure and sale constituted a taking without due process of law.