G.R. No. 106880 & G.R. No. 120190, August 20, 2002
Pedro Aclon, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, Philippine National Bank and Sps. Zosimo and Natalia Opimo, respondents.

FACTS

On December 15, 1964, petitioner Pedro Aclon secured a P5,000.00 loan from respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB), payable in one year, and mortgaged two parcels of land as security. After the loan matured and despite extensions and demands, Aclon failed to pay in full. Consequently, on May 31, 1973, PNB instituted extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings under Act 3135. After notice and publication, the properties were sold at public auction on July 17, 1973, with PNB as the highest bidder. A Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale was issued and registered. The redemption period lapsed on October 4, 1974 without Aclon redeeming the properties, leading PNB to consolidate ownership. On June 25, 1975, PNB sold one of the foreclosed properties (a residential lot) to respondent spouses Zosimo and Natalia Opimo. Aclon refused to vacate the property, prompting him to file a complaint for Annulment of Two Contracts of Sale with Damages and Consignation (Civil Case No. 1907). The Opimo spouses, in turn, filed a complaint for Recovery of Real Property with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Damages (Civil Case No. 1859). The cases were jointly heard but decided separately by the Regional Trial Court, which upheld the validity of the foreclosure and subsequent sale, declared the Opimo spouses as lawful owners entitled to possession, and ordered Aclon to vacate and pay compensation for use. Aclon appealed both decisions to the Court of Appeals. In CA-G.R. CV No. 24106 (Civil Case No. 1907), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision but deleted the award of attorney’s fees. In CA-G.R. CV No. 24133 (Civil Case No. 1859), the Court of Appeals modified the decision, declaring the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings and auction sale null and void for non-compliance with Act 3135 and the parties’ stipulation, but upheld the validity of the subsequent sale to the Opimo spouses and ordered Aclon to vacate. Aclon filed two petitions for review with the Supreme Court, which were consolidated.

ISSUE

The core issues, as raised in petitioner’s assignments of error, are: (1) Whether the extrajudicial foreclosure and auction sale are null and void for non-compliance with Act 3135 and the contractual agreement; (2) Whether the subsequent sale by PNB to the Opimo spouses is likewise null and void; (3) Whether the Opimo spouses are purchasers in bad faith; and (4) Whether the order for Aclon to pay compensation for use and occupation of the property has factual and legal basis.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied both appeals, finding them devoid of merit. The Court held that petitioner’s assigned errors essentially involve questions of fact, and in a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals, especially those affirming the trial court, are final and conclusive unless they fall under specific exceptions, which the Court found inapplicable. The Court found no compelling reason to depart from the factual findings of the Court of Appeals that: (1) PNB complied with the provisions of Act 3135 regarding the posting and publication of the notice of sale; (2) the Opimo spouses are buyers in good faith; (3) a payment made by Aclon to PNB on September 28, 1973 was intended for foreclosure expenses; and (4) a payment on January 21, 1975 was a deposit to enable Aclon to repurchase the property. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Court of Appeals.