PNB vs CA

that the extrajudicial foreclosure, consolidation of

ownership, and subsequent sale were all valid.

G.R. No. 98382

May 17, 1993

The CFI rendered its Decision; the complaint against

the petitioner was dismissed.

Facts:

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.

Two parcels of land under the common names 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.
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

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:
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 provisions governing
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.