G.R. No. 8241; September 27, 1913
Valeriana Raymundo, et al. vs. Tomas Sunico

FACTS

Valeriana Raymundo mortgaged three parcels of land to “Chuidian, Buenaventura y Compañia.” The mortgage was foreclosed, and a judgment was rendered against Raymundo. The property was sold at a sheriff’s sale to the mortgagee (appellee Sunico, presumably representing the mortgagee). The court confirmed the sale without giving notice to the mortgagor, Raymundo. Upon learning of the confirmation, Raymundo offered to pay the full judgment amount, but the offer was refused. Raymundo then filed an action to set aside the sheriff’s sale, alleging the confirmation was irregular due to lack of notice. The defendant’s demurrer was sustained, and the complaint was dismissed. Plaintiffs appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the failure to give the mortgagor notice of the hearing for the confirmation of a sheriff’s sale in a foreclosure proceeding renders the confirmation void, thereby entitling the mortgagor to have the sale set aside.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court, in a divided decision (with a dissenting opinion reflected in the digest), held that the lack of notice to the mortgagor of the confirmation hearing does not, by itself, invalidate the sale or the confirmation. The confirmation of a valid foreclosure sale is a ministerial duty of the court. The prejudice required to set aside a confirmation decree must result directly from the decree itself, such as being prevented from objecting to the sale on legal grounds. The mortgagor’s desire to redeem the property after confirmation is not a legal ground to attack the confirmation. The right to redeem is extinguished by a properly conducted foreclosure sale, not merely by the order of confirmation. The demurrer was correctly sustained as the complaint failed to allege any substantive defect in the sale itself, only the lack of notice for confirmation. The judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed.