G.R. No. 106953 August 19, 1993
CESAR SAN JOSE AND MARGARITA BATONGBAKAL, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. MARCOS DE GUZMAN AND GLORIA DE GUZMAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Cesar San Jose and Margarita Batongbakal mortgaged their property (covered by TCT No. T-159703) to respondent spouses Marcos and Gloria de Guzman on April 14, 1972, as security for a P12,000.00 loan. For alleged failure to comply with the mortgage conditions, the respondents extra-judicially foreclosed the mortgage. The property was sold at a sheriff’s sale on November 25, 1975, with the respondents as purchasers, leading to the cancellation of the petitioners’ title and the issuance of a new one (TCT No. T-30,762(M)) in the respondents’ name. The petitioners filed a complaint to annul the foreclosure sale, contending it was null and void because: 1) they were not notified; 2) the sheriff’s certificate of posting was not presented; 3) there was no proof the newspaper used was of general circulation; and 4) the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale and the minutes of auction sale referred to a property covered by TCT No. T-169705, not the correct TCT No. T-159703. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the sale, treating the title number discrepancy as a mere typographical error since the correct technical description was provided.

ISSUE

Whether or not the extra-judicial foreclosure sale complied with the notice requirements of Act No. 3135 , as amended, specifically, whether a Notice of Sheriff’s Sale containing an incorrect certificate of title number but the correct technical description constitutes valid notice.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It ruled that the notice of sale did not comply with the strict statutory requirements under Act No. 3135 , as amended. The failure to state the correct transfer certificate of title number (TCT No. T-169705 instead of TCT No. T-159703) was a substantial and fatal error that invalidated the notice and the subsequent sale. The Court held that the purpose of the notice is to inform all interested parties, including laypersons who typically rely on the title number, of the property to be sold. A correct technical description coupled with an incorrect title number does not constitute substantial compliance. Consequently, the extra-judicial foreclosure sale was declared null and void. The Register of Deeds was ordered to reinstate TCT No. T-159703 in the petitioners’ name and to cancel TCT No. T-30,762(M) in the respondents’ name.