Case Digest (G.R. No. 198800)
Facts:
Jose T. Ramirez v. The Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 198800, December 11, 2013, the Supreme Court First Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Jose T. Ramirez mortgaged two parcels of land in Marikina City (TCT Nos. N-10722 and N-23033) to respondent The Manila Banking Corporation to secure a P265,000 loan. The real estate mortgage contained paragraph N, a stipulation that “all correspondence relative to this MORTGAGE, including demand letters, summons, subpoenas or notifications of any judicial or extrajudicial actions shall be sent to the MORTGAGOR at the address given above,” and that mailing or personal delivery to that address would constitute valid notice.Respondent instituted extrajudicial foreclosure before Atty. Hipolito Sanez on account of alleged nonpayment. An auction was conducted on September 8, 1994, where the bank was the sole bidder and a certificate of sale was issued in its favor. In 2000 the bank demanded that Ramirez vacate the properties. Ramirez then filed an action for annulment of sale in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging among other things that paragraph N was violated because he was not personally notified of the foreclosure and auction sale.
The RTC, Branch 193, Marikina City, in Civil Case No. 2001-701-MK, rendered judgment on June 30, 2003 declaring the certificate of sale null and void and awarding P100,000 moral damages, P50,000 exemplary damages, P50,000 attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit. The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 80616, reversed by Decision dated November 26, 2010 and denied Ramirez’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated September 28, 2011, holding that absence of personal notice under paragraph N did not invalidate the extrajudicial foreclosure sale because Section 3 of Act No. 3135 requires posting and publication only.
Ramirez filed a petition for review on certiorari u...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- What is the legal effect of the bank’s failure to comply with paragraph N of the mortgage requiring personal notice to the mortgagor in an extrajudicial foreclosur...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)