G.R. No. 109244 . December 29, 1995.
SPOUSES JUAN and FILOMENA PULIDO and SPOUSES ALBERTO and NORMA GLORIA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and BIENVENIDO AGAPITO, respondents.

FACTS

Bienvenido Agapito mortgaged his unregistered land to the Rural Bank of Cavite City (RBCC). Upon his loan default, the mortgage was foreclosed, and the property was sold at public auction to RBCC. After the redemption period lapsed, RBCC sold the property to spouses Juan and Filomena Pulido, who subsequently sold it to spouses Alberto and Norma Gloria. Agapito filed a complaint seeking annulment of the foreclosure sale, alleging lack of notice. He presented the municipal postmaster, who testified he was unaware of any notice posted in the municipal building.
The trial court upheld the validity of the foreclosure sale and subsequent transfers. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. It found no evidence that the notice of foreclosure sale was posted as required by Presidential Decree No. 122, which mandates posting in three conspicuous public places. The appellate court noted that the “Notice of Extrajudicial Sale” presented did not prove actual posting and that the “Minutes of Sheriff Public Auction Sale” was not formally offered in evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the extrajudicial foreclosure sale null and void for non-compliance with the statutory posting requirement.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the mandatory nature of the posting requirement and the burden of proving compliance. While the party alleging non-compliance (Agapito) generally has the burden of proof, negative allegations concerning a document in the custody of the adverse party need not be proved. The law (Section 5 of R.A. No. 720 , as amended by P.D. No. 122) specifically requires that proof of posting shall consist of the sheriff’s affidavit, which must be attached to the records.
Here, RBCC, the foreclosing mortgagee and petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest, failed to present this crucial affidavit of the sheriff. No other competent and convincing proof of posting was offered. The mere presentation of the “Notice of Sale” does not establish that it was actually posted. The unoffered “Minutes” could not be considered. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties was rebutted by this failure to present the required proof. Consequently, the foreclosure sale was void for a jurisdictional defect in publication.
The Court also rejected the argument that petitioners, as subsequent innocent purchasers for value, acquired valid title. The property was unregistered land, and the deeds were recorded under Act No. 3344 . Such recording does not confer title but operates merely as a notice of claim. Petitioners merely stepped into the shoes of their vendors and acquired no better rights than RBCC, which had a void title from an invalid foreclosure sale.