G.R. No. 32737, September 19, 1930
LA URBANA, MUTUAL BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARMEN BELANDO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

La Urbana, Mutual Building and Loan Association (plaintiff-appellee) obtained a final judgment against Carmen Belando (defendant-appellant) in a foreclosure proceeding. After the judgment became final and the redemption period expired, the court ordered the sale of the mortgaged property at public auction. The sheriff attached the property, published notices of the sale, and sold the properties: one parcel to a third party for P8,850 and the remaining lots to the plaintiff for P6,850. The court approved the sale on September 2, 1929. Belando moved to vacate the order of confirmation, arguing lack of proper notice of the motion for confirmation and of the auction details, and that the selling price was inadequate and prejudicial. The court denied her motion, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the sale of the mortgaged property should be annulled due to lack of proper notice to the defendant.
2. Whether the sale should be set aside due to the inadequacy of the selling price.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and upheld the validity of the sale, subject to a conditional right of redemption for the defendant.

1. On the issue of notice: The Court found that the defendant’s attorneys were duly notified of the plaintiff’s motion for the sale of the property. The sheriff’s certificate showed that the defendant was notified of the attachment prior to the auction and that the sale was properly published in three public places in Cavite and in El Debate newspaper. The law does not require personal notification to the defendant for execution sales, and the presumption that the sheriff complied with legal requirements (under Section 454 of the Code of Civil Procedure) was not rebutted. Thus, there was no ground to annul the sale due to lack of notice.

2. On the issue of inadequacy of price: The Court held that inadequacy of price alone is not sufficient to set aside a regularly conducted sale confirmed by the court, unless it is proven that a higher price could be obtained at a resale. No such evidence was presented. Moreover, the plaintiff expressed willingness to accept payment of the judgment balance and to resell the properties to the defendant, an offer reiterated during the proceedings.

Disposition: The confirmation of the sale was stayed for 60 days from the defendant’s receipt of notice, allowing her to pay the plaintiff the judgment amount minus the P8,850 from the prior sale. If paid, the plaintiff must resell the properties adjudicated to it back to the defendant. If the defendant fails to pay within the period, the sale shall be deemed finally confirmed. No costs were awarded.