Case Digest (G.R. No. 201881)
Facts:
Spouses Flavio P. Bautista and Zenaida L. Bautista v. Premiere Development Bank, G.R. No. 201881, July 15, 2024, Supreme Court Special First Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are the registered owners of a parcel of land in Rodriguez (Montalban), Rizal (TCT No. 150668). In January 1994 they obtained an agricultural loan of PHP 500,000 from Premiere Development Bank (later Security Bank Savings Corporation) evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a real estate mortgage (REM) on the subject property. The petitioners defaulted.In 1995 Premiere Bank initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. Petitioners received notice of a scheduled sale on October 17, 1995 (for a November 17, 1995 sale) and requested postponement, acknowledging receipt of a computation sheet dated December 14, 1995 showing an outstanding balance but disputing several charges. Correspondence continued through August 1996 and then ceased. In 2002 notice of an extrajudicial sale scheduled for January 15 was published and posted, but the sale was rescheduled to February 18, 2002; the rescheduled sale lacked republication and reposting. The sheriff proceeded on February 18, 2002; the bank was the lone bidder and a Certificate of Sale issued. Petitioners tendered PHP 401,820.00 to redeem within the redemption period; Premiere Bank refused, asserting an outstanding balance of PHP 2,062,254.26. Premiere Bank thereafter caused TCT No. 452198 to be issued in its name.
On November 6, 2003 the petitioners filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale in Branch 77, RTC San Mateo, Rizal (Civil Case No. 1792). On February 8, 2008 the RTC dismissed the complaint, finding petitioners had waived posting/publication requirements by seeking postponements and were estopped from attacking the sale; it also upheld the bank’s account computation. The Court of Appeals affirmed on January 27, 2012. Under Rule 45 the petitioners brought a petition for review to the Supreme Court, which on September 5, 2018 partially granted the petition: it declared the February 18, 2002 foreclosure sale and issuance of TCT No. 452198 null and void for lack of posting and publication, ordered cancellation of TCT No. 452198 and reinstatement of TCT No. 150668, and ordered respondents to comply with Act No. 3135’s posting and publication requirements.
Petitioners moved for partial reconsideration to delete the Court’s directive ordering compliance with Act No. 3135 (Item 3 of the fallo), arguing the bank’s foreclosure action had prescribed under Article 1142 of the Civil Code from the accrual date of October 17, 1995. In a July 24, 2019 Resolution the Court granted the petitioners’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration and deleted Item 3. Premiere Bank filed the present Motion for...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Has Premiere Development Bank’s action to foreclose the mortgage prescribed under Article 1142 of the Civil Code?
- May petitioners be directed to pay their outstanding loan obligation to Premiere Development...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)