Case Digest (G.R. No. L-66936)
Facts:
Rural Bank of San Mateo, Incorporated v. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, Renato S. Mercado, Benjamin V. Sanidad, Santos L. Pilotin and Mariano Manuel, G.R. No. 66936, December 12, 1986, the Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rural Bank of San Mateo, Inc. sought extra-judicial foreclosure of a 12.1801-hectare parcel covered by TCT No. T-19927 in the name of Mariano Manuel, alleging a real estate mortgage debt. Manuel had also executed a separate chattel mortgage covering a hand tractor. The bank's combined obligation claim (real estate plus chattel) as of December 1975 totaled P41,594.56. The sheriff (provincial sheriff Renato S. Mercado, through Deputy Sheriff Benjamin V. Sanidad) published notice of an extra-judicial foreclosure sale limited to the land and scheduled the auction for March 8, 1976.
At auction the bank submitted a bid for P41,594.56 described in the record as for “lot and machinery;” Santos L. Pilotin bid P10,000.00. Deputy Sheriff Sanidad awarded the sale to Pilotin for P10,000.00 and treated the bank's P41,594.56 bid as “lost and unprevailing.” The bank protested and later learned that Pilotin registered a sheriff’s certificate of sale on November 22, 1976 without presenting the owner’s duplicate title. The bank filed suit for annulment of the auction sale with damages originally in the wrong venue (dismissed), then re-filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Quirino as Civil Case No. 87.
The trial court (CFI) set aside the auction sale, annulled the sheriff’s certificate of sale, ordered cancellation of the annotation on the title, directed return of Pilotin’s P10,000 bid, and awarded costs. The defendants (including the Sheriffs and Pilotin) appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). The IAC (later the Court of Appeals) found the foreclosure steps regular, held the sheriff was authorized to sell only the land described in the notice, and concluded the bank’s bid — though described as for “lot and machinery” — could not obligate the sheriff to foreclose the chattel mortgage or to deliver machinery not subject to the published sale. The IAC also found no laches or prescription and held that registration of an involuntary sheriff’s certificate of sale did not require presentation of the owner’s duplicate title. It reversed the trial court and dismissed the bank’s complaint.
Petitioner brought a petition for review by certiorari to the Supreme Court, assigning two errors: (1) that the Sheriffs had a duty to protect the bank’s int...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was it the duty of the Sheriffs (Mercado and Sanidad) to protect the bank’s interest by clarifying its bid and informing it of all other bids before the actual sale?
- Was petitioner obliged to foreclose both the real estate mortgage and the chattel mortgage so that its bid for both would be properly ente...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)