ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 144877.November 21, 2001]

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VERONICA AGUIRRE et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentleman:

Quoted hereunder , for your information ,is a resolution of his Court dated NOV 21 2001.

G.R. No. 144877(Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Veronica Aguirre and the Honorable Court of Appeals.)

Petitioner moves for reconsideration of the decision of September 7, 2001.

First. While conceding the Court's power to motu proprio look into the question of the lack of jurisdiction to hold the foreclosure sale despite failure of petitioner to republish the notice of sale, petitioner claims that the foreclosure sale scheduled on September 25, 1985, as published, did not proceed because petitioner and respondent agreed to postpone the same, first to October 23, 1985 and later to January 7, 1986, and that they stipulated that the notice of sale need no longer be reposted and republished (Annexes A&B).

The contention has no merit. The requirement for the publication of the notice of extrajudicial foreclosure sale is mandatory and jurisdictional (Masantol Rural Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 752 (1991); Tambunting v. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 16 (1988)). Concomitantly, if the sale has been published but is postponed to another date, the notice of sale must be republished to give notice to the public of the new time, place, and date of sale. Any sale conducted in violation thereof is void (Tambunting v. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 16 (1988)). Indeed, the purpose of the publication of the notice of sale is to give wide publicity of the date, time, and place of sale of the property subject thereof so that all interested parties can attend it if they so choose (Olizon v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 148 (1994); San Jose v. Court of Appeals, 225 SCRA 450 (1993)). Hence, the giving of notice cannot be the subject of stipulation between the parties.

Second. Alternatively, petitioner contends that respondent Aguirre's liability under the terms of the contract of loan, inclusive of interests, penalties and charges, is P1,520,513.71 as of September 30, 2001 (Annex C) and not P247,740.70.

In the decision of September 7, 2001, the Court had ordered respondent Aguirre "to pay petitioner the amount of P247,740.70 with interest as stipulated in the contract of loan, as of January 7, 1986, without prejudice to the right of petitioner to foreclose the real estate mortgage executed by respondent Aguirre on April 21, 1980 upon failure of respondent Aguirre to pay the said amount." This is respondent Aguirre's liability as of January 7, 1986. Petitioner is not precluded from recovering from respondent Aguirre whatever amounts that may have become due and demandable thereafter. Nevertheless, for the purpose of clarifying the Court's ruling to reflect the foregoing, the Court RESOLVED to modify the dispositive portion of the decision of September 7, 2001 to read as follows:

'WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated December 29, 1999, is AFFIRMED with the modification that private respondent Veronica Aguirre is ordered to pay petitioner the amount of P247,740.70 representing her outstanding obligation as of January 7, 1986 without prejudice to the right of petitioner to recover from respondent Aguirre such additional amount as may have become due thereafter in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement and to foreclose the real estate mortgage dated April 21, 1980 upon failure of respondent Aguirre to pay her obligation."

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE