Reyes v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Carlos Ramirez and Emilia G. Ramirez and Teodora P. Geronilla executed a second mortgage in favor of Conchita P. Dionisio over a lot and building to secure a loan of P5,000.00. An additional loan of P3,600.00 was later granted, also secured by the same mortgage. Subsequently, the Ramirez spouses sold the mortgaged property to Jaime Y. Reyes and Tommy Y. Reyes, who agreed to assume the mortgage debts. Conchita alleged the additional loan was P8,600.00, making the total obligation P13,600.00. As the debt to Conchita was not paid, she extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. The sheriff scheduled the sale, posted notices in public places, and published the notice in the Bayanihan Weekly News. At the auction sale, Conchita was the sole bidder at P16,581.45, which was credited to the full satisfaction of the mortgage debt. A certificate of sale was issued to her, registered on March 6, 1970, with the redemption period expiring one year from registration. Before the redemption period expired, Jaime Y. Reyes assigned his interest to Tommy Y. Reyes. Tommy tendered P9,200.00 as redemption price, which the sheriff rejected. Procedural History: Tommy and Andrea G. Reyes filed an action against Conchita and the sheriff to annul the foreclosure sale and compel acceptance of the tendered redemption price, later amending the complaint to include a prayer for cancellation of Conchita's title. The sheriff issued a final certificate of sale to Conchita, who registered it and obtained a new title. The lower court dismissed the complaint, declared the foreclosure sale valid, and recognized Conchita as the rightful owner. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. The Petition: The Reyes spouses appealed to the Supreme Court, contending non-compliance with notice and publication requirements and that the tendered redemption price was sufficient.
Issue(s)
Whether there was compliance with the notice and publication requirements for the extrajudicial foreclosure sale. Whether the tendered redemption price of P9,200.00 was sufficient.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and dismissing the petition. The Court found that the issue of compliance with notice and publication requirements was a factual matter already resolved by the Court of Appeals, which found sufficient compliance based on documentary evidence. The Court also held that the tendered redemption price was insufficient, as the Court of Appeals had determined the correct redemption price to be P16,581.45.
Ratio Decidendi
On the compliance with notice and publication requirements: The Court reiterated that the contention regarding non-compliance with notice and publication requirements under Act No. 3135 is a factual issue that cannot be entertained in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals had already found, as a matter of fact, that there was compliance with the public posting and publication requirements, supported by documentary evidence. The Court clarified that the Appellate Court's statement about presumption was not meant to imply that compliance was merely presumed, but rather that Conchita, through her evidence, had discharged her burden of proof regarding these requirements. The burden then shifted to the Reyes spouses to present countervailing evidence, which they failed to do. The rule is that if the mortgagor alleges lack of proper publication, the burden of proving that fact rests upon him. The testimony of the managing editor of the newspaper further established its status as a newspaper of general circulation. On the sufficiency of the tendered redemption price: The Court held that the determination of the redemption price is also a factual issue. The Court of Appeals found that the redemption price was P16,581.45 and that the tendered amount of P9,200.00 was insufficient. The Reyes spouses' contention that the redemption price should be P9,200.00, based on their calculation of principal and interest, was a factual argument that could not be raised in the Supreme Court. Therefore, the finding of the Appellate Court on the insufficiency of the tendered redemption price was conclusive.
Main Doctrine
The burden of proof rests on the mortgagor to establish non-compliance with statutory requirements regarding the posting and publication of the notice of sale in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. Failure to present countervailing evidence shifts the burden back to the mortgagor.