Title
Supreme Court
Security Bank Corp. vs. Spouses Martel
Case
G.R. No. 236572
Decision Date
Nov 10, 2020
Spouses defaulted on loans, requested auction postponements without republication, then challenged foreclosure validity; SC ruled estoppel applied, upholding sale.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 236572)

Factual Background

The case arose from a credit agreement between the petitioner bank and the respondent spouses, who executed a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) on August 26, 1994, to secure a loan of PHP 10,000,000.00. The value of the loans increased over several years, eventually totaling an aggregate obligation of PHP 26,700,000.00. Respondent spouses defaulted, prompting the bank to initiate extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, culminating in a sale conducted on October 23, 2002, where the petitioner purchased the mortgaged property as the highest bidder.

Procedural History

After the foreclosure, on November 11, 2003, the respondent spouses filed a complaint seeking to nullify the foreclosure sale and promissory notes, citing prematurity of the sale, bad faith, exorbitant interest rates, and irregularities. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision on August 5, 2014, nullifying the auction sale and ordered reinstatement of the original title to the respondents. The RTC noted that the respondents were in bad faith, having requested multiple postponements of the auction sale.

RTC's Reversal

Upon motion for reconsideration from the petitioner, the RTC reversed its earlier decision on December 22, 2014, dismissing the complaint based on judicial admissions made by the respondents concerning their requests for postponement. The RTC concluded that the respondents were estopped from questioning the auction's validity because they had sought and been granted multiple postponements without republication.

Court of Appeals Review

The spouses appealed, and the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a decision on September 28, 2016, reversing the RTC's order, and found the foreclosure sale void due to the failure of the petitioner to comply with the necessary requirements for republication of the auction date. The CA affirmed that the auction sale was improper, leading to its nullification.

Petition for Review

The petitioner sought a review from the Supreme Court, arguing that the spouses had not paid the correct docket fees required for their action against the bank, which the petitioner claimed invalidated the RTC’s jurisdiction. The Court ruled that although the respondents were allowed to pay their fees late, such payment was valid as long as it was made before the prescriptive period expired.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court favored the petitioner, stating that the spouses, who prompted the postponement of the sale, were indeed estopped from

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.