Sadang v. Government Service Insurance System
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-appellants, Esteban M. Sadang and Maria Lachica, obtained two loans from the defendant-appellee, Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), totaling P173,000.00, secured by a real estate mortgage on their property. Due to defaults in amortization payments, GSIS initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. The property was sold at public auction to GSIS as the highest bidder on December 2, 1959. GSIS applied for and was granted a writ of possession, taking possession of the property on November 10, 1960. Procedural History: On September 8, 1962, plaintiffs filed an action to annul the foreclosure sale and recover damages, alleging that the newspaper "Voz de Manila" was not of general circulation and that the notice of sale was not published for three consecutive weeks. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court, asserting the property's value exceeded P200,000.00. The Petition: Plaintiffs argued that the foreclosure sale was void ab initio because the newspaper "Voz de Manila" lacked general circulation and the publication of the notice of sale was not sufficiently established for three consecutive weeks.
Issue(s)
Whether the publication of the notice of sale in "Voz de Manila" was sufficient. Whether "Voz de Manila" is a newspaper of general circulation. Whether the plaintiffs' inaction constituted a waiver of their objections.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, dismissing the complaint and sentencing the plaintiffs and their counsel jointly and severally to pay treble costs. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claims regarding the insufficiency of the publication and the lack of general circulation of the newspaper. Furthermore, their prolonged inaction after the foreclosure sale and the issuance of the writ of possession constituted a waiver of their objections.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of publication: The Court held that the affidavit of the editor of "Voz de Manila," stating that the notice was published on October 29, and November 5 and 12, 1959, constituted prima facie evidence of the publication. Since the plaintiffs failed to present competent evidence to the contrary, and the burden of proof rested upon them as the party alleging non-compliance, their claim was unsubstantiated. The cited cases of Campo vs. Bartolome, Balagtas vs. Arguelles, and Borja vs. Addison were deemed inapplicable as they involved sales without the required notice, whereas in this case, notices were given. On the general circulation of "Voz de Manila": The Court upheld the lower court's finding that "Voz de Manila" was a newspaper of general circulation, being read by those who understood Spanish, a language in which newspapers were rare in Manila at the time. The court noted that the newspaper contained news of general interest and carried various official notices. The fact that some universities did not subscribe or retain copies was not proof of lack of general circulation, especially considering the newspaper was in Spanish and its content might not be of interest to university students with limited Spanish proficiency. The Court found the lower court's assessment substantially correct and was not prepared to disturb it. On waiver due to inaction: The Court emphasized that plaintiffs were notified of the impending sale, the sale proceeded as scheduled, and they did not object to the subsequent application for a writ of possession. The writ was granted, and possession was delivered without opposition. Their failure to object for almost two years after the sale and during the possession proceedings constituted a waiver of any objections they might have had, including those based on the alleged defects in the publication and the newspaper's circulation. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the ordinary course of business further supported this conclusion.
Main Doctrine
The affidavit of the editor of a newspaper concerning the publication of a notice of sale constitutes prima facie evidence of such publication. The burden of proving non-compliance with publication requirements rests on the party alleging it. Failure to raise objections to the foreclosure sale and subsequent possession proceedings within a reasonable time constitutes a waiver of such objections.