GR 124372; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124372 ; March 16, 2000
RENATO CRISTOBAL and MARCELINA CRISTOBAL, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, RURAL BANK OF MALOLOS and ATTY. VICTORINO EVANGELISTA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners obtained two loans from respondent Rural Bank of Malolos, secured by real estate mortgages. Upon default, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgages. The properties were sold at public auction with the bank as the highest bidder. After petitioners failed to redeem, titles were consolidated in the bank’s name. Petitioners filed an action for annulment of the foreclosure sales and for reconveyance, alleging procedural defects. They claimed non-compliance with Act No. 3135 , specifically the lack of proper notice and publication of the sale, and that they were not notified of the redemption period’s expiration.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, annulling the foreclosure sales and ordering reconveyance. It found that the bank failed to prove compliance with the statutory posting and publication requirements. The bank appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court held that the bank had substantially complied with the legal requirements, giving weight to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the sheriff.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the respondent bank substantially complied with the notice and publication requirements under Section 3 of Act No. 3135 for the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sales.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the presumption of regularity and the burden of proof. Non-compliance with statutory requisites for foreclosure is a factual issue. While factual findings of lower courts are generally binding, exceptions exist when their findings conflict. Here, the trial court and the Court of Appeals arrived at contrary conclusions regarding compliance.
The Court emphasized that foreclosure proceedings enjoy the presumption of regularity. The burden to rebut this presumption lies with the party challenging the sale. Petitioners failed to present convincing and substantial evidence to overturn the presumption that the sheriff regularly performed his official duty in posting the notices. The Court cited precedent establishing that a certificate of posting is not indispensable for a foreclosure sale’s validity under Act 3135.
Regarding publication, the Court found substantial compliance. The bank presented affidavits of publication and newspaper clippings from the “Mabuhay” newspaper, a publication of general circulation in Bulacan, where the properties were located. Petitioners did not dispute this circulation. The Court reiterated that publication in a newspaper of general circulation alone can constitute sufficient compliance with the law’s notice requirements. Consequently, the appellate court correctly ruled that the statutory mandates were met, validating the foreclosure sales.