G.R. No. 42701 - Yutivo Sons Hardware Co. vs. Confesor

Petitioner: Consuelo Roxas, owner of Lot No. 3108 located at Tanza Norte, Panay, Capiz, covering 14.7238 hectares and evidenced by Tax Declaration No. 5129.
Respondents: Court of Appeals and Rural Bank of Dumalag, Inc.
Instrument used: On December 22, 1969, petitioner executed a Special Power of Attorney appointing her brother, the late Manuel Roxas, as her attorney-in-fact to secure an agricultural loan with Rural Bank of Dumalag, Inc.

Upon failure to pay the loan on maturity, Rural Bank foreclosed the mortgage on October 24, 1973.
The foreclosed property was later sold at a public auction on January 7, 1974, where Rural Bank emerged as the highest bidder for P3,009.37.

Petitioner was not timely notified about the foreclosure nor the maturity of the loan.
Despite the foreclosure, petitioner attempted to redeem the property by consigning the redemption price of P4,194.50 with the trial court.
Possession of the land was taken from Jennifer Roxas (Manuel Roxas’ daughter) on October 4, 1982 and delivered to the Rural Bank.

Petitioner filed a complaint for cancellation of the foreclosure mortgage and annulment of the auction sale on September 2, 1981, before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City (Civil Case No. V-4543).
In her complaint, petitioner contended:

She was never informed by Manuel Roxas about the loan’s approval or its maturity.
Written notice for foreclosure was not properly given as required by law.
Notice posting failed to comply with Section 5 of Republic Act No. 720, as amended – requiring notices in three conspicuous public places, including the barrio.
Repeated requests for a statement of account were disregarded until eventually provided on August 19, 1981.

The trial court ruled in favor of petitioner on January 20, 1989, declaring the auction sale null and void and allowing redemption, among other orders.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision on May 23, 1991, finding substantial compliance with the statutory posting requirements.
The Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari, ultimately setting aside the Court of Appeals’ decision and modifying portions of the trial court’s ruling.

Whether Rural Bank’s failure to post the foreclosure notice in the barrio where the mortgaged land is located constitutes a fatal jurisdictional defect.
Whether posting in the municipality and in Roxas City suffices under the requirements of Section 5 of R.A. No. 720, as amended by R.A. No. 5939.

Whether the use of a certificate of posting by the sheriff, in lieu of the required affidavit of posting, meets the statutory mandate for proof of publication.
The impact of the non-personal notification of the mortgagor given that notice to the attorney-in-fact was considered, by respondents, equivalent to notice to the principal.

Whether petitioner should be allowed to redeem the subject land on equitable grounds despite the auction sale.
Consideration of the alleged gross inadequacy of the sale price relative to the property’s area and features, including a fishpond.