GR 133429; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133429, August 10, 2006
SPOUSES VIRGILIO G. TAMAYO, JR. and LUCINDA F. TAMAYO, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF GAVINO DOMINGUEZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Gavino Dominguez obtained a loan secured by a real estate mortgage on half of his commercial property from Community Savings and Loan Association (CSLA). The mortgage contract contained a specific stipulation in Section 10 requiring all correspondence, including notifications of judicial or extrajudicial actions, to be sent to the mortgagor at his given address. Upon Dominguez’s death and the loan’s maturity, CSLA extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, acquired the property at auction, and later sold it to petitioners Spouses Tamayo after the heirs allegedly failed to exercise a repurchase option.
The Tamayos filed an action for partition against the heirs. The heirs opposed, contending the foreclosure was null and void due to CSLA’s failure to send them or the deceased mortgagor a notice of the foreclosure proceedings as expressly required by Section 10 of the mortgage deed. The trial court initially ordered partition but, upon reconsideration, nullified the foreclosure and subsequent sale, allowing redemption by the heirs.
ISSUE
Whether the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale were valid despite the alleged non-compliance with the contractual notice requirement stipulated in the mortgage deed.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core issue involved a factual determination of whether CSLA sent the required notice. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and upheld the appellate court’s factual finding that no evidence proved CSLA properly sent notice to Gavino Dominguez or his heirs as mandated by Section 10 of their contract. While personal notice in extrajudicial foreclosure is generally unnecessary unless stipulated, the parties here voluntarily agreed to an additional stipulation. This contractual obligation, not being contrary to law or public policy, was binding and required faithful compliance. CSLA’s failure to comply rendered the foreclosure proceedings defective. The Court also sustained the deletion of the attorney’s fees award, as the trial court’s decision stated the award only in its dispositive portion without providing the requisite factual and legal justification in the text of the decision.