G.R. No. 143768 . March 28, 2005
ZOSIMO PEREZ, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. DEMOCRITO PEREZ, SUBSTITUTED BY ERLINDA M. PEREZ AND MARIA CECILIA M. PEREZ, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners executed a real estate mortgage in favor of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) over a property in Morong, Bataan. Upon default, DBP instituted extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings under Act No. 3135 . The Provincial Sheriff posted notices at three public places in Morong and published the notice of auction sale for three consecutive weeks in the “Olongapo News.” The auction proceeded, with respondent Democrito Perez as the winning bidder. After petitioners failed to redeem, title was consolidated in his favor.
Petitioners filed a case to annul the auction sale, alleging violations of due process and Act No. 3135 . They specifically contended that the “Olongapo News” was not a newspaper of general circulation in Bataan and that the postings were defective. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the extrajudicial foreclosure sale complied with the publication and posting requirements of Act No. 3135 , as amended, thereby rendering the sale valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the validity of the foreclosure sale. On the publication requirement, the Court held that the “Olongapo News” qualified as a newspaper of general circulation in Bataan. The legal presumption under Rule 131 of the Rules of Court that official duty has been regularly performed applied to the Sheriff’s certification of publication. Petitioners failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut this presumption. The Court noted that the newspaper had been used in previous judicial proceedings in Bataan, supporting its status as one of general circulation.
Regarding the posting of notices, the Court found that the Sheriff’s Return, which stated that notices were posted in three public places in the municipality where the property was situated, was prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Petitioners’ bare denial of proper posting, unsupported by contrary evidence, was insufficient to overcome this presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. Consequently, the Court ruled that the mandatory requirements of Act No. 3135 were duly observed. The foreclosure proceedings were valid, and petitioners were not deprived of due process, as the law does not require personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial foreclosure.