PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, G.R. No.

98382
vs. May 17, 1993
THE COURT OF APPEALS and EPIFANIO DE LA CRUZ, respondents.

Facts:
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, Unsold 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. The CFI rendered its Decision; the 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:
WON the required publication of The Notices of Sale on the foreclosed properties
under Sec. 3 of Act 3135 was complied.

Court Ruling and Doctrine:

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.