G.R. No. 232004 - Philippine Savings Bank vs. Josephine Co

Loan and mortgage
On January 25, 2006, respondent Josephine Co borrowed ₱10,000,000.00 from Philippine Savings Bank, secured by a real estate mortgage over land at the corner of Singalong St. and Fermin St., Manila (TCT No. 259982).
The loan and mortgage were evidenced by a Promissory Note with Real Estate Mortgage, which provided:

Paragraph 19 authorizing PSBank to foreclose the mortgage without need of notice or demand and to sell the property at public auction under Act No. 3135;
Paragraph 60 stipulating that all correspondence relative to the agreement, including demand letters, summonses, subpoenas, or notifications of any judicial or extrajudicial actions, shall be sent to the mortgagor at the address given in the Note.

Extrajudicial foreclosure and sale
After respondent defaulted, PSBank sent a demand letter to her address per Paragraph 60, applied for extrajudicial foreclosure, and complied with Act No. 3135 by posting sale notices in three public places and publishing in a newspaper for three consecutive weeks; on September 14, 2006, PSBank was the sole and highest bidder at the public auction, resulting in issuance of TCT No. 281141 in its favor.
On February 27, 2013, respondent filed a complaint for annulment of foreclosure proceedings with prayer for injunctive relief, claiming she received no prior personal notice of the unpaid obligation or foreclosure sale.

Judicial proceedings
The Regional Trial Court, in its April 27, 2015 Decision, dismissed respondent’s complaint, holding that Act No. 3135 requires only posting and publication of the notice of sale and that no agreement existed to require personal notice.
On December 8, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Paragraph 60 constituted an undertaking to personally notify respondent of extrajudicial foreclosure and declaring the foreclosure proceedings and related titles null and void; its March 30, 2017 Resolution denied PSBank’s motion for reconsideration.
PSBank filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, which was opposed by respondent.

Whether PSBank’s failure to personally notify respondent prior to extrajudicial foreclosure renders the foreclosure proceedings void.
Whether Paragraph 60 of the Promissory Note constitutes an express undertaking to personally notify respondent of judicial or extrajudicial actions.