Olizon v.

CA
FACTS:
1) Sometime in 1967 when the spouses Armando and Iluminada Olizon obtained a loan rom
respondent !rudential "an# in the amount o !$%&'''('' and& as se)urit* thereor& the* e+e)uted in
a,or o respondent ban# a real estate mort-a-e o,er a par)el o land )onsistin- o 1&''' s.uare
meters lo)ated at "arrio Calaanan& /aloo#an Cit* and re-istered in their names under TCT o the
0e-istr* o 1eeds o /aloo#an Cit*(
$) It appears rom the re)ords that the Olizon spouses ailed to pa* their aorestated obli-ation upon
its maturit*& so pri,ate respondent e+tra2udi)iall* ore)losed the real estate mort-a-e(
3) At a publi) au)tion thereater held on 4ar)h 11& 197%& the sub2e)t propert* was sold to respondent
ban# as the hi-hest bidder& pursuant to whi)h it was issued a )erti5)ate o sale as o the same date(
6) On 4ar)h 1$& 1976& the said )erti5)ate o sale was dul* annotated at the ba)# o petitioner7s TCT(
%) On 8une %& 1979& a-ain due to the ailure o petitioner spouses to redeem the ore)losed propert*
within the period o redemption& title to the propert* was )onsolidated in a,or o respondent ban#(
6) On 8anuar* 16& 1996& respondent ban# 5led with the 0e-ional Trial Court o /aloo#an Cit* a petition
to re)onstitute TCT& whi)h was lost in the O:)e o the 0e-istr* o 1eeds o /aloo#an Cit*(
7) On 8une 11& 1996& the 0TC ordered the re)onstitution pra*ed or(
9) As a )onse.uen)e& old TCT in the name o the Olizon spouses was )an)elled and& in lieu thereo&
new TCT was issued on 8une %& 1997 in the name o respondent ban#(
9) On ;o,ember $7& 1999& respondent ban# this time 5led with the 0TC o /aloo#an Cit*& a petition or
the issuan)e o a writ o possession a-ainst petitioner spouses(
1') On 4ar)h 9& 199'& a petition& b* wa* o opposition& was 5led b* petitioner spouses wherein the*
sou-ht the )an)ellation o the writ o possession& the nulli5)ation o the )erti5)ate o sale dated
4ar)h 11& 1976& and<or the nulli5)ation o the ore)losure pro)eedin-s(
11) In support thereo& the* alle-ed la)# o noti)e o the au)tion sale and la)# o postin- o the noti)e o
sale as re.uired b* Se)tion 3 o A)t ;o( 313%& as amended( 6
1$) The 0TC ruled that the ore)losure o the real estate mort-a-e e+e)uted b* the spouses Olizons& as
well as the )erti5)ate o sale dated 4ar)h 11& 1976 as =si)) null and ,oid>
13) CA re,ersed the 0TC?s de)ision& hen)e this petition(@

ISSAB: Chether the re.uirements o Se)( 3& A)t ;o( 313%& as amended& were not )omplied with(
It is now a wellDsettled rule that personal noti)e to the mort-a-or in e+tra2udi)ial ore)losure pro)eedin-s is
not ne)essar*( 1' Se)tion 3 o A)t ;o( 313% -o,ernin- e+tra2udi)ial ore)losure o real estate mort-a-es& as
amended b* A)t ;o( 6119& re.uires onl* the postin- o the noti)e o sale in three publi) pla)es and the
publi)ation o that noti)e in a newspaper o -eneral )ir)ulation( Een)e& the la)# o personal noti)e to the
mort-a-ors& herein petitioners& is not a -round to set aside the ore)losure sale(
;either )an the supposed ailure o respondent ban# to )ompl* with the postin- re.uirement as pro,ided
under the aoresaid Se)tion 3& under the a)tual ambian)e and )ir)umstan)es whi)h obtained in this )ase&
be )onsidered a su:)ient -round or annullin- the aorementioned sale( Ce are not unaware o the rulin-s
in some )ases that& under normal situations& the statutor* pro,isions -o,ernin- publi)ation o noti)e o
e+tra2udi)ial ore)losure sales must be stri)tl* )omplied with and that ailure to publish the noti)e o
au)tion sale as re.uired b* the statute )onstitutes a 2urisdi)tional dee)t whi)h in,alidates the sale(
Eowe,er& the unusual nature o the attendant a)ts and the pe)uliarit* o the )onFuent )ir)umstan)es
in,ol,ed in this )ase re.uire that we rule otherwise(
!etitioners7 )ited authorit* on the re.uisite publi)ation o noti)es is not so allDembra)in- as to den*
2usti5ed e+)eptions thereto under appropriate situations( !etitioners .uote this passa-e rom Tambuntin-
et al( ,s( Court o Appeals& et al( 11 whi)h is not )on)lusi,e hereon or not bein- e+a)tl* in point& based as
it is on diGerent a)ts& thus:
The rule is that statutor* pro,isions -o,ernin- publi)ation o noti)e o mort-a-e ore)losure sales must be
stri)tl* )omplied with& and that e,en sli-ht de,iations thererom will in,alidate the noti)e and render the
sale at least ,oidable( Interpretin- Se)( 6%7 o the Code o Ci,il !ro)edure =reprodu)ed in Se)( 19H)I o 0ule
39& 0ules o Court and in Se)( 3 o A)t ;o( 313%) in Campomanes ,s( "artolome and Jerman K Co( =39 !hil(
9'91)& this Court held that i a sheriG sells without the noti)e pres)ribed b* the Code o Ci,il !ro)edure
indu)ed thereto b* the 2ud-ment )reditor& the sale is absolutel* ,oid and no title passes( ( ( ( =Bmphasis
supplied()
At an* rate& respondent Court o Appeals has this )ommendable ratio)ination on the aorestated twin
errors assi-ned b* petitioners:
The de)isi,e issue whi)h must be resol,ed is whether or not the statutor* re.uirements o noti)e ha,e
been )omplied with in this )ase( Se)tion 1$ o the mort-a-e )ontra)t reads:
L1$( All )orresponden)e relati,e to this mort-a-e& in)ludin- demand letters& summonses& subpoenas or
noti5)ations o an* 2udi)ial or e+tra2udi)ial a)tion shall be sent to the 4ort-a-or at ;o( 9$ ;a,al Street&
4alabon& 0izal or at the address that ma* hereater be -i,en in writin- b* the 4ort-a-or to the 4ort-a-ee(
The mere a)t o sendin- an* )orresponden)e b* mail or b* personal deli,er* to the said address shall be
,alid and eGe)ti,e noti)e to the 4ort-a-or or all le-al purposes& and ( ( ( shall not e+)use or relie,e the
mort-a-or rom the eGe)ts o su)h noti)e(L =Bmphasis supplied()
The ore-oin- stipulation is the law between petitioner and oppositorsDspouses and should be )omplied
with aithull*(
That the mort-a-ors were a)tuall* noti5ed b* appellant ban# o the ore)losure pro)eedin-s is shown b*
its letters to the Olizons beore the a)tual sale at publi) au)tion o the sub2e)t propert*& to wit: =1) Metter
dated 8anuar* 16& 1973 o Att*( O)ta,io 1( Fule& Me-al O:)er o appellant ban# to the Olizons inormin- the
latter that their ailure to pa* their obli-ations will )onstrain appellant ban# to institute appropriate le-al
a)tion a-ainst them> =$) Metter dated 8anuar* 31& 1976 o Att*( O)ta,io 1( Fule& Me-al O:)er o appellant
ban#& inormin- the Olizons that !rudential "an# has 5led ore)losure pro)eedin-s under A)t 313%& as
amended(
+++ +++ +++
Furthermore& noti)e o sale was dul* published in a))ordan)e with law and urnished the Olizons( The
e,iden)e presented durin- the trial o the )ase show that the then Cler# o Court& Bmma Ona& sent a
printed letter dated Februar* 19& 1976 inormin- the Olizons that appellant ban# had 5led an appli)ation to
ore)losure their real estate mort-a-e and the publi) au)tion o the mort-a-ed par)el o land was sent on
4ar)h 11& 1976& to-ether with a )op* o the ;oti)e o Sale( The do)ument is more than ten =1') *ears old
and the absen)e o a re-istr* re)eipt in the )ase older o the ore)losure re)ords o the SheriG o the Cit*
o Caloo)an& does not indi)ate that the Olizons did not re)ei,e a )op* o the aoresaid noti)e o sale& it
bein- presumed that the sheriG perormed her duties and that ore)losure pro)eedin-s are re-ular( ( ( (
=Citations omitted() 1$
Furthermore& unli#e the situation in pre,ious )ases 13 where the ore)losure sales were annulled b* reason
o ailure to )ompl* with the noti)e re.uirement under Se)tion 3 o A)t ;o( 313%& as amended& what is
alle-edl* la)#in- here is the postin- o the noti)e in three publi) pla)es& and not the publi)ation thereo in
a newspaper o -eneral )ir)ulation(
Ce ta#e 2udi)ial noti)e o the a)t that newspaper publi)ations ha,e more arDrea)hin- eGe)ts than postin-
on bulletin boards in publi) pla)es( There is a -reater probabilit* that an announ)ement or noti)e published
in a newspaper o -eneral )ir)ulation& whi)h is distributed nationwide& shall ha,e a readership o more
people than that posted in a publi) bulletin board& no matter how strate-i) its lo)ation ma* be& whi)h
)aters onl* to a limited ew( Een)e& the publi)ation o the noti)e o sale in the newspaper o -eneral
)ir)ulation alone is more than su:)ient )omplian)e with the noti)eDpostin- re.uirement o the law( "* su)h
publi)ation& a reasonabl* wide publi)it* had been eGe)ted su)h that those interested mi-ht attend the
publi) sale& and the purpose o the law had been thereb* subser,ed(
The ob2e)t o a noti)e o sale is to inorm the publi) o the nature and )ondition o the propert* to be sold&
and o the time& pla)e and terms o the sale( ;oti)es are -i,en or the purpose o se)urin- bidders and to
pre,ent a sa)ri5)e o the propert*( I these ob2e)ts are attained& immaterial errors and mista#es will not
aGe)t the su:)ien)* o the noti)e> but i mista#es or omissions o))ur in the noti)es o sale& whi)h are
)al)ulated to deter or mislead bidders& to depre)iate the ,alue o the propert*& or to pre,ent it rom
brin-in- a air pri)e& su)h mista#es or omissions will be atal to the ,alidit* o the noti)e& and also to the
sale made pursuant thereto( 16
In the instant )ase& the aoresaid ob2e)ti,e was attained sin)e there was su:)ient publi)it* o the sale
throu-h the newspaper publi)ation( There is )ompletel* no showin- that the propert* was sold or a pri)e
ar below its ,alue as to insinuate an* bad aith& nor was there an* showin- or e,en an intimation o
)ollusion between the sheriG who )ondu)ted the sale and respondent ban#( This bein- so& the alle-ed nonD
)omplian)e with the postin- re.uirement& e,en i true& will not 2usti* the settin- aside o the sale(
4oreo,er& herein petitioners ailed to dis)har-e the burden o pro,in- b* )on,in)in- e,iden)e their
alle-ation that there was a)tuall* no )omplian)e with the postin- re.uirement( The ore)losure pro)eedin-
has in its a,or the presumption o re-ularit*& 1% and the burden o e,iden)e to rebut the same is on
petitioners( Chere the alle-ation is an essential part o the )ause o a)tion or deense in a )i,il )ase&
whether posited in an a:rmati,e or ne-ati,e orm& the burden o e,iden)e thereon lies with the pleader(
16 "esides& the a)t alone that there was no )erti5)ate o postin- atta)hed to the sheriG7s re)ords o the
e+tra2udi)ial ore)losure sale is not su:)ient to pro,e the la)# o postin-& espe)iall* in this )ase where the
.uestioned a)t and the re)ord thereo are alread* 16 *ears old( It is .uite unair to now shit to respondent
ban# the burden o pro,in- the a)t o postin- )onsiderin- the len-th o time that has elapsed& aside rom
the a)t that the sheriG who )ondu)ted the publi) sale and who was responsible or the postin- o the
noti)e o sale is alread* out o the )ountr*& with the re)ords bein- silent on his present whereabouts or the
possibilit* o his returnin- here(
Indeed& e,en on e.uitable )onsiderations alone& the presumption o re-ularit* in the perorman)e o o:)ial
dut* must stand( As aptl* ound b* the Court o Appeals:
( ( ( It is not a matter o la)# o )omplian)e with the re.uirements o the law& rather& it is a matter o
una,ailabilit* o )ertain do)uments due to the loss thereo& )onsiderin- that more than si+teen =16) *ears
had lapsed rom the date o the e+traD2udi)ial ore)losure o the real estate mort-a-e( Indeed& the
presumption o re-ularit* in the perorman)e o o:)ial dut* b* the sheriG& more parti)ularl*& )omplian)e
with the pro,isions o A)t 313%& as amended& has not been o,erturned b* the Olizons( 17
;or are these all that we wish to e+pound hereon& or this is one )ase where we 5nd the ne)essit* or the
appli)ation o the e.uitable prin)iple o estoppel b* la)hes in order to a,oid an in2usti)e(
Ma)hes has been de5ned as the ailure or ne-le)t& or an unreasonable and une+plained len-th o time& to
do that whi)h b* e+er)isin- due dili-en)e )ould nor should ha,e been done earlier> it is ne-li-en)e or
omission to assert a ri-ht within a reasonable time& warrantin- a presumption that the part* entitled to
assert it either has abandoned it or de)lined to assert it( 19
In the )ase at bar& petitioners are alread* )onsidered estopped throu-h la)hes rom .uestionin- the
re-ularit* o the sale as well as the ownership o the land in .uestion( It is e,ident rom the re)ords that
the petition to annul the ore)losure sale was 5led b* herein petitioners onl* ater 16 lon- *ears rom the
date o sale and onl* ater a transer )erti5)ate o title o,er the sub2e)t propert* had lon- been issued to
respondent ban#( Eerein petitioners ailed to ad,an)e an* 2usti5)ation or their prolon-ed ina)tion( It would
be ine.uitable to allow petitioners& ater the lapse o an almost interminable period o time& to deeat an
otherwise indeeasible title b* the simple and dubious e+pedient o in,o#in- a purported irre-ularit* in the
ore)losure pro)eedin-s(
Althou-h a sale under a power )ontained in a mort-a-e or trust deed has been dee)ti,el* e+e)uted and
the mort-a-or has the ri-ht to disa:rm the same& he ma*& b* la)hes or b* a)ts amountin- to an estoppel
or rati5)ation& )ure the dee)t and render the sale ,alid( 19 Chere a sale under a power is ,oidable at the
ele)tion o the mort-a-or or some irre-ularit* N su)h as that the mort-a-ee pur)hased without authorit*&
or that there was an inade.ua)* in the pri)e obtained& a want o su:)ient or proper noti)e& or the li#e N
the mort-a-or must institute pro)eedin-s or a,oidan)e within apt and reasonable time& or his la)hes will
bar him o relie( $' Thus& a part* see#in- to set aside a ore)losure sale made under a power o sale must
brin- his a)tion without unreasonable dela*( The )ourt -enerall* will reuse to -rant relie when there has
been -reat and unreasonable dela*& amountin- to la)hes& in see#in- its aid( $1
"esides& it has been said that in see#in- to set aside a ore)losure sale& the mo,in- part* must a)t
promptl* ater he be)omes aware o the a)ts on whi)h he bases his )omplaint& and in this )onne)tion&
noti)e o an irre-ularit* ma* be presumed rom the a)t that the mort-a-or has #nowled-e o the sale& as
he is thereb* put on in.uir*& and is bound to use dili-en)e in dis)o,erin- an* dee)ts in the pro)eedin-s(
$$ Ea,in- ailed to do so& petitioners )annot now be heard on their mu)h belated plaints(
4oreo,er& it is an entren)hed do)trine in our 2urisdi)tion that re-istration in a publi) re-istr* is noti)e to
the whole world( The re)ord is a )onstru)ti,e noti)e o its )ontents as well as o all interest& le-al and
e.uitable& in)luded therein( All persons are )har-ed with #nowled-e o what it )ontains( $3 Thereore& in
the )ase at bar& the annotation o the )erti5)ate o sale on petitioners7 Transer Certi5)ate o Title ;o(
$66'6 and the 5lin- o the a:da,it o )onsolidation with the 0e-ister o 1eeds )onstituted )onstru)ti,e
noti)e o both a)ts to herein petitioners( Conse.uentl*& as earl* as 4ar)h 11& 1976 $6 when the )erti5)ate
o sale was annotated at the ba)# o their title& petitioners were alread* )har-ed with #nowled-e o the
ore)losure sale& *et the* still ailed or reused to ta#e the ne)essar* steps to prote)t their ri-hts o,er the
sub2e)t propert*(
It also bears stressin- that petitioners entered their appearan)e in the 0e-ional Trial Court o /aloo#an Cit*
where the petition or re)onstitution o Transer Certi5)ate o Title ;o( $66'6 was 5led b* respondent ban#&
as shown b* said )ourt7s order dated 8une 11& 1996( $% It was then in)umbent on petitioners to ha,e 5led
an ob2e)tion or opposition to the re)onstitution i the* sin)erel* belie,ed that the propert* ri-htull*
belon-s to them( Si-ni5)antl*& petitioners neither mo,ed or the re)onsideration o nor appealed rom the
order o the lower )ourt -rantin- re)onstitution o title in the name o respondent ban#(
Finall*& the ne-li-en)e or omission to assert a ri-ht within a reasonable time warrants not onl* a
presumption that the part* entitled to assert it either had abandoned it or de)lined to assert it& but also
)asts doubt on the ,alidit* o the )laim o ownership( Su)h ne-le)t to assert a ri-ht ta#en in )on2un)tion
with the lapse o time& more or less -reat& and other )ir)umstan)es )ausin- pre2udi)e to the ad,erse part*&
operates as a bar in a )ourt o e.uit*( $6 In the present )ase& at no time ater the debt be)ame due and
demandable and the mort-a-e propert* had been ore)losed& or e,en thereater& did petitioners oGer to
pa* their mort-a-e obli-ation to redeem their propert*( !etitioners7 )olle)ti,e a)ts are& thereore& indi)ati,e
o their a).uies)en)e to and a)#nowled-ment o the ,alidit* o the ore)losure pro)eedin-s and the sale&
as well as a re)o-nition o respondent ban#7s 2ust and le-al title o,er the propert* a).uired thereb*(
Ce& thereore& )annot but )on)ur in these obser,ations o respondent Court:
The e,iden)e on re)ord& li#ewise show that ater the ore)losure pro)eedin-s in 1976& the Olizons had
totall* abandoned a)tual ownership o,er the sub2e)t propert* in a,or o appellant ban#& lea,in- it to
appellant ban# to pa* the real estate ta+es o,er the sub2e)t propert*( In a)t& in the re)onstitution o the
owner7s title in Case ;o( CD$766& while the Olizons entered their appearan)e beore the 0e-ional Trial Court
o Caloo)an& the* did not oppose the petition o appellant ban#& despite the a)t that the )erti5)ate o sale
and 5nal deed o sale as well as )onsolidation o the ownership were submitted as e,iden)e b* appellant
ban# in the re)onstitution pro)ess( It was onl* ater the* noti)ed the la)# o )ertain do)uments in the
possession o the sheriG that the* thou-ht o raisin- te)hni)alities( ( ( ( $7
CEB0BFO0B& the instant petition is 1B;IB1 or la)# o merit and the assailed 2ud-ment o respondent
Court o Appeals is hereb* AFFI04B1 in toto(
SO O01B0B1(