GR 139437; (December, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139437 ; December 8, 2000
LANGKAAN REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., petitioner, vs. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. (Langkaan) executed a real estate mortgage over its property in favor of respondent United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) to secure a loan obtained by Guimaras Agricultural Development, Inc. (Guimaras). Guimaras defaulted on the loan. Consequently, UCPB initiated extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings. The Notice of Sale was published in the “Record Newsweekly” and posted in several conspicuous locations, including the municipal hall, barangay hall, and the property site. The property was sold at public auction to UCPB as the highest bidder. After Langkaan failed to redeem the property, title was consolidated in UCPB’s name.
Langkaan filed a complaint for annulment of the foreclosure sale, alleging UCPB’s non-compliance with the publication and posting requirements under Act No. 3135 . Specifically, Langkaan contested the sufficiency of the publication in the chosen newspaper and the validity of the posting of notices. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, finding that UCPB had complied with the legal requirements. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the extra-judicial foreclosure sale is null and void due to alleged non-compliance with the notice and publication requirements under Act No. 3135 .
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the validity of the foreclosure sale. The Court ruled that the petitioner’s arguments raised factual issues, not pure questions of law, and were thus beyond the scope of a Petition for Review under Rule 45. The Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts and generally defers to the factual findings of the lower courts, especially when the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court.
The trial court’s factual findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, established due compliance with Act No. 3135 . The sheriff positively testified to posting the notices in three conspicuous places as required. The Court held that the positive testimony of the sheriff, who is presumed to have performed his duties regularly, prevails over the general denials of Langkaan’s witnesses. Furthermore, the publication in the “Record Newsweekly” was deemed sufficient. The Court also clarified that the venue for filing the petition for foreclosure, which was another point of contention, pertained to procedural venue—a matter that can be waived—and not to the court’s jurisdiction. Since Langkaan participated in the proceedings without timely objecting to the venue, it was deemed to have waived any objection. Therefore, no reversible error was committed by the appellate court.