Case Digest (G.R. No. 21026)
Facts:
Philippine National Bank v. Manuel Ernesto Gonzalez, G.R. No. L-21026, February 13, 1924, the Supreme Court (Johns, J., writing for the Court). The appellee Philippine National Bank sued defendant-appellee Manuel Ernesto Gonzalez on November 23, 1921 to foreclose a real mortgage securing a promissory note for P15,000; on March 17, 1922 the bank filed an amended complaint to foreclose a second mortgage for P15,000 on the same land. The defendant was duly served in both actions and defaulted.After the defendant's default was entered (motion for default filed April 21, 1922; default declared August 8, 1922), the trial court, following a hearing on proofs, rendered judgment on August 28, 1922 requiring Gonzalez to pay the amounts secured by the two mortgages within three months or suffer sale of the property. The aggregated judgments as of August 28, 1922 were P17,313.59 (first cause of action) and P17,755 (second).
Execution issued on January 11, 1923, and the property described in Torrens Certificates (Exhibits A, B and C) was advertised and put up for sale. Parcels described in Exhibits B and C were sold to Saturnino Lopez (appellant) for P15,000, being the highest bid; the bank was present at the sale and refused to bid above P15,000. The sheriff moved to confirm the sale on February 16, 1923; on March 9, 1923 the trial court entered an order confirming the sale.
On April 5, 1923 Gonzalez, through counsel, moved for reconsideration of the March 9 confirmation order on the single expressed ground that “said order is not in accordance with law.” At hearing the only evidence as to value was a municipal treasurer’s certificate dated March 26, 1923 stating the four described parcels had an assessed valuation of P45,940; no witnesses testified about market value and there was no showing that a resale would fetch a higher price. On April 16, 1923 the trial court set aside its confirmation, finding that although the sale’s formal requisites were complied with, the land had a value of P45,940 while it had been sold for only P15,000, and ordered a resale.
Lopez appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning that the trial court erred in setting aside the confirmation and o...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court act within its discretion in setting aside its prior confirmation of the judicial sale when the motion for reconsideration merely alleged that the order was "not in accordance with law"?
- Was the inadequacy of price alone, supported only by an assessed valuation certificate and absent evidence of fraud, collusion, or proof that a resale would yield a higher price, a sufficient grou...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)