THIRD
DIVISION
|
SPS. ROGELIO MARCELO & MILAGROS MARCELO,
Petitioners, - versus
- PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL
BANK (PCIB), Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 182735 Present: Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: December 4, 2009 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Debts
are nowadays like children begot with pleasure, but brought forth in pain.
Moliere
Before this Court is a Petition for
Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court, filed by spouses Rogelio Marcelo and Milagros Marcelo (spouses
Marcelo) assailing the Decision[1]
dated 31 January 2007 and the Resolution[2]
dated 29 August 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 82424, upholding
the validity of the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings initiated by
Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) and the subsequent public
auction sale conducted against their properties.
The antecedent facts of the case are
as follows:
The spouses Marcelo obtained from
PCIB several loans in staggered amounts within the period 1996-1997. In turn, they executed promissory notes in
favor of PCIB summarized as follows[3]:
|
Promissory Note Number |
Principal Amount |
Date of Instrument |
Maturity Date |
|
97-115[4] |
|
|
|
|
97-116[5] |
|
|
|
|
97-117[6] |
|
|
|
|
97-124[7] |
|
|
|
|
97-138[8] |
|
|
|
|
97-175[9] |
|
|
|
|
162/96[10] |
|
|
26 May 1997 |
Each Promissory Note had a corresponding
Disclosure Statement in compliance with Republic Act No. 3765 signed by spouses
Marcelo acknowledging and conforming to the terms and conditions attached to
their credit transactions.
On 3 June 1997, to secure
the payment of their loans, including any extension or renewal of the credit
and all other obligations, whether contracted before, during or after the
constitution of a Real Estate Mortgage (REM), amounting to P3,990,000.00
representing their
entire principal obligations under PN No. 162/96, No. 97-124, No. 97-138 and No.
97-175, the spouses Marcelo executed an REM[11]
over six parcels of land all situated in Baliuag, Bulacan with an aggregate
area of 2,780 square meters and registered in their names under Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCTs) No. T-91170,[12]
No. T-93936,[13] No.
T-91169,[14] No.
T-93935,[15] No.
T-2524[16]
and No. T-16803.[17]
The REM assured PCIB of
the following remedy:
In the event the Mortgagor/Borrower
defaults in the obligations hereby secured, breaches or fails to comply with
any of the terms and conditions stipulated in this mortgage or in the separate
instruments evidencing the obligations hereby secured, or institutes suspension
of payments or insolvency proceedings or to be involuntarily declared
insolvent, or if this mortgage cannot be recorded in the Registry of Deeds
(hereinafter referred to as “events of default”), the Mortgagee may foreclose
this mortgage extra-judicially in accordance with Act No. 3135, as amended, or
judicially in accordance with the Rules of Court. Should the Mortgagee be
compelled to foreclose this mortgage or to take any other legal action to
protect its interest, the Mortgagor/Borrower shall pay attorney’s fees which
are hereby fixed at 15% of the total obligation that is unpaid exclusive of all
costs and fees allowed by law.[18]
The spouses Marcelo defaulted
on the payment of their outstanding loans, prompting PCIB to make repeated
demands for its payment as evidenced by PCIB’s final demand letter[19]
dated P6,836,931.05
as of P7,628,501.98
as of
On
A Notice of Sheriff’s
The Notice was also sent
by registered mail to PCIB and spouses Marcelo,[25]
but the latter denied receiving the same.[26]
The Notice of the
Sheriff’s
On P5,616,000.00.[31]
The Certificate of Sale[32]
issued to PCIB dated
Shortly before the
expiration of the redemption period, spouses Marcelo filed a Complaint[34]
before RTC Bulacan on 26 October 1999, alleging (1) PCIB’s violations of the
terms and conditions of the REM contract and the Promissory Notes by demanding
exorbitant interest rates and unnecessary bank charges without them being notified;
and (2) irregularities in the foreclosure proceedings for failure to comply
with the posting and publication requirements as mandated by Act No. 3135. The spouses Marcelo prayed for the
nullification of the foreclosure proceedings and the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) against PCIB to prevent the latter from taking possession
of the foreclosed properties.
On
Quoting Olizon v. Court of Appeals,[36]
the trial court declared that the lack of personal notice to the mortgagors is
not a ground to set aside the foreclosure sale. Notices are given for the
purpose of securing bidders and preventing a sacrifice of the property. If these objects are attained, immaterial
errors and mistakes will not affect the sufficiency of the notice.
PCIB, in its Motion to
Dismiss[37]
filed on
The spouses Marcelo
opposed the above Motion by emphasizing the need for a full-blown trial as
necessitated by the trial court in its Order dated
In its Reply[40]
filed on
On
PCIB, in its Answer[42]
filed on
In their Reply[43]
filed on
In its Decision[44]
dated
The RTC affirmed, as
well, PCIB’s allegation of laches against spouses Marcelo, stating, among other
things, that the action was but a much-delayed afterthought following the
spouses Marcelo’s neglect to seek an accurate accounting of their loan
obligation and their omission to redeem their properties within the period
prescribed by law. Hence, it decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment
is hereby rendered DISMISSING the above-entitled complaint for insufficiency of
evidence to warrant the reliefs prayed for therein as well as the pecuniary
counterclaim of defendant Philippine Commercial International Bank.[46]
Acting on the spouses
Marcelo’s Motion for Reconsideration,[47]
the trial court issued an Order[48]
dated
The trial court, in
granting the Motion, submissively agreed with the spouses Marcelo’s suppositions,
thus:
All told, the Court agrees with the
argument of [Sps. Marcelo] that the provision of law requiring the posting of
the notices of sale of a property subject of extra-judicial foreclosure have
not been faithfully complied with in the proceedings complained of in the case
at bar. By such token, the aforestated extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings
must be nullified for having been violative of the law on the matter. If for
that reason alone, the Court withdraws its application in the assailed decision
of “the legal presumption that the public functionaries involved in the
foreclosure proceedings, particularly the sheriff concerned, ‘regularly performed’
their official duties in that specific respect. [par. (m), Sec. 3, Rule 131 of
the Revised Rules of Court].[49]
In pronouncing non-compliance
with the publication requirement as necessitated by Act No. 3135, the trial
court decreed that the publication of the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale in The Times Newsweekly, being a tabloid
with few stale news items, was insufficient to meet the publication requirement
of the law, the same having commanded very minimal readership. Hence:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
aforementioned Motion for Reconsideration submitted by [the spouses Marcelo]
vis-ŕ-vis the decision dated
Aggrieved, PCIB appealed
the above Order to the Court of Appeals on
The Court of Appeals, in
its Decision[52]
dated
The appellate court,
defining public place as any location that the local state or national
government maintains for the use of the public such as highway, park or public
building, maintained that the posting of the said notices at the Meralco posts
satisfies the mandates of Act. No. 3135 as to posting requirement, for what is
material is the accessibility of the said posted notices to the general public.
Finding refuge in case law, it added
that supposed there was really a defect in posting, still the publication of
the notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or municipality
where the mortgaged property was situated cured the infirmity. Therefore, it ruled:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Order
dated
The Court of Appeals, in
its Resolution[54]
dated
On
Signed by Court of
Appeals Executive Clerk of Court III, Vilma S. Ayala-Dasal on
Hence, this petition[56]
filed on
I.
That
the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that the Motion for Extension of
Time to file Motion for Reconsideration is non-extendible.
II.
That
the Court of Appeals gravely erred in upholding the validity of the extra-judicial
foreclosure sale despite of non-compliance with the posting and publication
requirements as mandated by Act No. 3135.
III.
That
the Court of Appeals gravely erred in upholding the validity of the foreclosure
sale despite of PCIB’s breach of contract by charging interests not agreed upon
by the parties.
This petition has no
merit.
Revisiting the records of
this case would reveal that the case attained its finality as of
In Dapar
v. Biascan,[59]
this Court reiterates that nothing is more settled in law than that once a
judgment attains finality, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect,
even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an
erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification
is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of
the land. Just as the losing party has
the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has
the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case.
The instant Petition
offers no cogent reason that would sway this Court to make a radical departure
from its hesitancy to reopen a case that has attained finality. The issues raised in the main by the
petitioners are but the same issues that were already passed upon by the Court
of Appeals in its Decision dated
Through the ages, courts have
been duty-bound to put an end to controversies.
Any attempt to prolong, resurrect or juggle them should be firmly struck
down. The system of judicial review
should not be misused and abused to evade the operation of final and executory
judgments.[61]
Nevertheless, even if we
probe into the merits of this case, still, the petition is unmeritorious.
In their first assigned
error, the petitioners claimed that the Motion for Extension of Time to File
Motion for Reconsideration is in accordance with law.
We disagree.
This Court provides in Section
1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court that a motion for reconsideration of a
judgment or a final order should be filed within the period for appeal, which
is within 15 days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final order
appealed from. The 2002 Internal Rules
of the Court of Appeals also states that unless an appeal or a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is filed within the 15-day reglementary period,
the Court of Appeals’ decision becomes final.[62]
Hence, the general rule is that no motion for extension of time to file a
motion for reconsideration is allowed.
The rule as to the
non-extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration is, however, not
absolute. As early as 1986 in Habaluyas
Enterprises, Inc. v. Maximo M. Japson,[63]
this Court has pronounced:
After considering the able arguments of counsels for petitioners and respondents, the Court resolved that the interest of justice would be better served if the ruling in the original decision were applied prospectively from the time herein stated. The reason is that it would be unfair to deprive parties of their right to appeal simply because they availed themselves of a procedure which was not expressly prohibited or allowed by the law or the Rules. On the other hand, a motion for new trial or reconsideration is not a pre-requisite to an appeal, a petition for review or a petition for review on certiorari, and since the purpose of the amendments above referred to is to expedite the final disposition of cases, a strict but prospective application of the said ruling is in order. Hence, for the guidance of Bench and Bar, the Court restates and clarifies the rules on this point, as follows:
1.) Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court. Such a motion may be filed only in cases pending with the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested. (Emphasis ours.)
Accordingly, motions for
extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be
filed only in connection with cases pending before this Court, which may in its
sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested. No such motion may be filed before any lower
courts.[64]
In opting for the liberal application of the rules in the interest of equity and
justice, we cannot look with favor on a course of action which would place the
administration of justice in a straight jacket for then the result would be a
poor kind of justice if there would be justice at all.[65]
We likewise disagree with
the petitioners’ allegation that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in
upholding the validity of the extra-judicial foreclosure sale despite
non-compliance with the posting and publication requirements as mandated by Act
No. 3135.
The requirement on the
posting of notices is found in Section 3 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No.
4118, viz:
Sec. 3. Notice shall be given by posting
notices of the sale for not less than twenty days in at least three public
places of the municipality or city where the property is situated, and if such
property is worth more than four hundred pesos, such notice shall also be
published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the municipality or city.
The petitioners argue
that the posting of the Notice of Sheriff’s
A public place is a place exposed to the public and where the public
gathers together or passes to and fro.[66]
As can be gleaned from Sheriff Ipac’s
Affidavit of Posting, the Notices were posted on the Meralco posts within the
vicinities of Baliuag Roman Catholic Church, Baliuag Public Market and near the
chapel of Sabang, Baliuag, Bulacan. The
aforementioned vicinities where the Meralco posts were erected are public
places, to which the general public has a right to resort. The Meralco posts where the Notices were posted
are but component structures of the public place itself. The law does not intend that notices to the
public be posted on specific bulletin boards or information areas of a public
place. What the law directs is for the
notices to be placed in an area where the same is perceptible to the public.
As regards publication, Presidential
Decree No. 1079, effective
SECTION. 1. All notices of auction
sales in extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage under Act No. 3135
as amended, judicial notices such as notices of sale on execution of real
properties, notices in special proceedings, court orders and summonses and all
similar announcements arising from court litigation required by law to be
published in a newspaper or periodical of general circulation in particular
provinces and/or cities shall be published in newspapers or publications
published, edited and circulated in the same city and/or province where the
requirement of general circulation applies: Provided, That the province or city where the publication’s
principal office is located shall be considered the place where it is edited
and published: Provided,
further, That in the event there is no newspaper or periodical published
in the locality, the same may be published in the newspaper or periodical
published, edited and circulated in the nearest city or province: Provided, finally, That no
newspaper or periodical which has not been authorized by law to publish and
which has not been regularly published for at least one year before the date of
publication of the notices or announcements which may be assigned to it shall
be qualified to publish the said notices.
SEC. 2. The executive judge of the
court of first instance shall designate a regular working day and a definite
time each week during which the said judicial notices or advertisements shall
be distributed personally by him for publication to qualified newspapers or
periodicals as defined in the preceding section, which distribution shall be
done by raffle: Provided, That
should the circumstances require that another day be set for the purpose, he
shall notify in writing the editors and publishers concerned at least three (3)
days in advance of the designated date: Provided, further, That the distribution of the said
notices by raffle shall be dispensed with in case only one newspaper or
periodical is in operation in a particular province or city.
The trial court’s opinion,
that The Times Newsweekly’s minimal
readership made it insufficient to meet the publication requirement is, to our
minds, too narrow and limiting as to strip the newspaper of its privilege as
one of the authorized publications for the notices of auction sale in Bulacan. As this Court held in many cases, to be a
newspaper of general circulation, it is enough that it is published for the
dissemination of local news and general information; that it has a bona fide
subscription list of paying subscribers; and that it is published at regular
intervals.[67] The newspaper need not have the largest circulation,
so long as it is of general circulation.[68]
As evidenced by the Affidavit
of Publication executed by The Times
Newsweekly’s publisher, Teddy F. Borres, the said newspaper is of general
circulation in the Provinces of Bulacan, Pampanga,
As to the last assigned
error, the spouses Marcelo claim nullity of the foreclosure sale due to the alleged
increase of interest rates and charges without their consent.
Again, we find no merit
in said allegation.
Every promissory note
signed by the plaintiffs has its corresponding Disclosure Statement wherein the
interests and charges are stated. The
acknowledgment by the plaintiffs of the statement prior to the consummation of
the credit transaction and their agreement with the terms and conditions
thereof simply contradict their self-claimed innocence over the matter.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate Justice |
|
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Rebecca de Guia-Salvador with Associate Justices Magdangal M. de Leon and Ricardo R. Rosario concurring. Rollo, pp. 120-135.
[2]
[3] Records, pp. 525-549.
[4] Exhibit “4”; id. at 466.
[5] Exhibit “5”; id. at 468.
[6]
[7] Exhibit “6”; id. at 470.
[8] Exhibit “7”; id. at 472.
[9] Exhibit “8”; id. at 474.
[10] Exhibit “9”; id. at 476.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] Records, p. 463.
[19] Exhibit “9”; pp. 78-479.
[20] Exhibit “10”.
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] TSN ,
[25]
[26] Rollo, p. 122.
[27] Records, pp. 459-461.
[28] Exhibit “15”,
[29] Exhibit “16”,
[30] Exhibit “17”,
[31] Rollo, p. 122.
[32] Records, p. 34.
[33] Exhibit “E”.
[34]
[35]
[36] G.R. No. 107075,
[37] Records, pp. 94-110.
[38] SECTION 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the Court of First Instance of the Province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in form of an ex parte motion in the registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is registered, or in special proceedings in the case of property registered under the Mortgage Law or under section one hundred ninety-four of the Administrative Code, or of any other real property encumbered with a mortgage duly registered in the office of any register of deeds in accordance with any existing law, and in each case the clerk of the court shall, upon the filing of such petition, collect the fees specified in paragraph eleven of section one hundred and fourteen of Act Numbered Four Hundred and ninety-six, as amended by Act No. Twenty-eight hundred and sixty-six and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the property is situated who shall execute said order immediately.
[39] Comment and Opposition,
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44] Penned by Judge D. Roy A. Masado, Jr.; id. at 551-557.
[45] G.R. 86679,
[46] Records, p. 557.
[47]
[48]
[49] Rollo, pp. 34-35.
[50]
[51]
[52] CA rollo, pp. 122-137.
[53] Rollo, p. 81.
[54] CA rollo, p. 152.
[55]
[56] Rollo, pp. 3-14.
[57] See Industrial Timber Corporation v. Ababon, G.R. No. 164518,
[58] See Ram’s Studio and Photographic Equipment, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 400 Phil. 542, 550 (2000).
[59] 482 Phil. 385 (2004).
[60] Buaya v. Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc., 396 Phil. 738, 747-748 (2000).
[61]
[62] Rule VII of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals
(Entry of Judgment and Remand of Cases)
Section 1. Entry of Judgment. – Unless a motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed or an appeal taken to the Supreme Court, judgments and final resolutions of the Court shall be entered upon expiration of fifteen (15) days from notice to the parties.
x x x x
Sec. 5. Entry of Judgment and Final Resolution. — If no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these Rules, the judgment or final resolution shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of entries of judgments. The date when the judgment or final resolution becomes executory shall be deemed as the date of its entry. The record shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final resolution and shall be signed by the clerk, with a certificate that such judgment or final resolution has become final and executory.
[63] 226 Phil. 144, 147-148 (1986).
[64] Fernandez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131094,
[65] See Alberto Imperial v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158093, June 5, 2009; Barnes
v. Padilla, G.R.
No.
160753,
[66] Black’s Law Dictionary (Centennial Edition, 1891-1991), pp. 1230-1231.
[67] Basa v. Mercado, 61 Phil. 632, 635 (1935).
[68] See Perez v. Perez, 494 Phil. 68, 77 (2005).