G.R. No. 146096 ; December 14, 2001
SPOUSES JOHN AND ANITA UY TANSIPEK, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF METRO MANILA, DISTRICT II, and GRACE S. BELVIS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Tansipek obtained loans from respondent Philippine Bank of Communications (PBC), secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land in San Juan. Due to default, PBC extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. The sale was published in the NEW RECORD newspaper on December 15, 22, and 29, 1984, and conducted on January 9, 1985, with PBC as the highest bidder at P500,000. The spouses failed to redeem the property, leading PBC to consolidate title and seek a writ of possession.
The spouses filed a complaint to annul the foreclosure sale, arguing insufficient publication, lack of posting in public places, and an inadequate bid price, as the property was allegedly worth P1,285,000. The Regional Trial Court nullified the sale, citing the newspaper’s limited circulation and delayed delivery, lack of proof of posting, and the shocking inadequacy of the bid price. It ordered the cancellation of PBC’s title and reinstatement of the spouses’ title.

ISSUE

The core issues are whether the foreclosure sale is null and void due to a shocking and unconscionably inadequate bid price, and whether petitioners are entitled to reconveyance of the property and attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the RTC. The legal logic rests on two primary grounds. First, the issues raised are fundamentally factual, concerning the adequacy of the bid price and the procedural compliance with publication and posting requirements. In an appeal via certiorari, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law, not re-examining factual findings supported by substantial evidence. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this rule, as the case did not fall under any established exception, such as a gross misapprehension of facts or conclusions unsupported by evidence.
Second, and decisively, the petitioners’ failure to redeem the property within the statutory period rendered PBC’s ownership absolute. Under Act No. 3135 , as amended, the purchaser at a foreclosure sale, upon consolidation of title after the redemption period, is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right. This right is a mere incident of the bank’s established ownership. The Court cited Laureano v. Bormaheco, Inc., which holds that after the redemption period lapses, the purchaser’s right to possession becomes absolute and can be obtained through an ex-parte motion. Therefore, the alleged inadequacy of price, even if proven, did not nullify the sale after the period for redemption had expired without action from the mortgagors.