PNB vs CA

PNB vs CA G.R. No. 98382 May 17, 1993 Facts:  Two parcels parcels of of land under under the the common common names names of of the respondent Epifanio dela Cruz, his brother and sister were mortgaged to the Petitioner Philippine National Bank. The lots were mortgaged to guarantee the by three promissory notes. The first two were not paid by the respondent. The third is disputed by the respondent who claims that the correct date is June 30, 1961; however, in the bank records, the note was really executed on June 30, 1958.

 The CFI rendered rendered its Decision; Decision; the complaint complaint against the petitioner was dismissed. Unsatisfied with the judgment, respondent interposed an appeal that the lower court erred in holding that there was a valid compliance in regard to the required publication under Sec. 3 of Act. 3135. Respondent court reversed the judgment appealed from by declaring void, inter alia, the auction sale of the foreclosed pieces of realty, the final deed of sale, and the consolidation of ownership. Hence, the petition with SC for certiorari and intervention.

Issue: PNB presented under Act No. 3135 a foreclosure petition of the mortgaged lots. The lots were sold or auctioned off with PNB as the highest bidder. A Final Deed of Sale and a Certificate of Sale was executed in favor of the petitioner. The final Deed of Sale was registered in Registry of Property. Inasmuch as the respondent did not buy back the lots from PNB, PNB sold on the same in a "Deed of Conditional Sale". The Notices of Sale of foreclosed properties were published on March 28, April 11 and April 12, 1969 in a newspaper. Respondent brought a complaint for the reconveyance of the lands, which the petitioner allegedly unlawfully foreclosed. The petitioner states on the other hand that the extrajudicial foreclosure, consolidation of  ownership, and subsequent sale were all valid.

WON the required publication of The Notices of Sale on the foreclosed properties under Sec. 3 of Act 3135 was complied.

Ruling: No. The first date falls on a Friday while the second and third dates are on a Friday and Saturday, respectively. Section 3 of Act No. 3135 requires that the notice of  auction sale shall be "published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks". Evidently, petitioner bank failed to comply with this legal requirement. The Supreme Court held that:  The rule is that statutory statutory provisions provisions governin governing g publication of notice of mortgage foreclosure sales must be strictly complied with, and those even slight deviations therefrom will invalidate the notice and render the sale at least voidable.

WHEREFORE, the petitions for certiorari and intervention are hereby dismissed and the decision of  the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed in toto.