G.R. No. 177050, July 01, 2013
CARLOS LIM, CONSOLACION LIM, EDMUNDO LIM,* CARLITO LIM, SHIRLEY LEODADIA DIZON,** AND ARLEEN LIM FERNANDEZ, Petitioners, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
(a) TCT No. T-6005 x x x in the name of Edmundo Lim;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(b) TCT No. T-6182 x x x in the name of Carlos Lim;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(c) TCT No. T-7013 x x x in the name of Carlos Lim;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(d) TCT No. T-7012 x x x in the name of Carlos Lim;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(e) TCT No. T-7014 x x x in the name of Edmundo Lim;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(f) TCT No. T-7016 x x x in the name of Carlito Lim;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(g) TCT No. T-28922 x x x in the name of Consolacion Lim;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(h) TCT No. T-29480 x x x in the name of Shirley Leodadia Dizon;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(i) TCT No. T-24654 x x x in the name of Trinidad D. Chua; and
(j) TCT No. T-25018 x x x in the name of Trinidad D. Chua’s deceased husband Juan Chua.12
Diamond L Ranch Account:Claiming to have already paid P902,800.00, Edmundo requested for an amended statement of account.20
Matured [Obligation]: Principal P 939,973.33 Regular Interest 561,037.14 Advances 34,589.45 Additional Interest 2,590,786.26 Penalty Charges 1,068,147.19 Total claims as of January 31, 1989 P 5,194,533.3718
Matured [Obligation]: Principal P 40,000.00 Regular Interest 5,046.97 Additional Interest 92,113.56 Penalty Charges 39,915.46 Total claims as of January 31, 1989 P 177,075.9919
This has reference to your letter dated May 28, 1993, which has connection to your desire to restructure the Diamond L Ranch/Carlos Lim Accounts.
We wish to clarify that what have been agreed between you and the Branch are not final until [the] same has been approved by higher authorities of the Bank. We did [tell] you during our discussion that we will be recommending the restructuring of your accounts with the terms and conditions as agreed. Unfortunately, our Regional Credit Committee did not agree to the terms and conditions as recommended, hence, the subject of our letter to you on March 15, 1993.
Please be informed further, that the Branch cannot do otherwise but to comply with the conditions imposed by the Regional Credit Committee. More so, the time frame given had already lapsed on June 2, 1993.
Unless we will receive a favorable action on your part soonest, the Branch will be constrained to do appropriate action to protect the interest of the Bank.”55
1) Submission of Board Resolution and Secretary’s Certificate designating you as authorized representative in behalf of Diamond L Ranch;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
2) Payment of March 15 and June 15, 1993 amortizations within 30 days from date hereof; and
3) Submission of SEC registration.
In this connection, please call immediately x x x our Legal Division to guide you for the early documentation of your approved restructuring.
Likewise, please be reminded that upon failure on your part to sign and perfect the documents and comply [with] other conditions within (30) days from date of receipt, your approved recommendation shall be deemed CANCELLED and your deposit of P362,271.75 shall be applied to your account.
Your request for extension is hereby granted with the conditions that:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
1) This will be the last and final extension to be granted your accounts; and
2) That all amortizations due from March 1993 to November 1993 shall be paid including the additional interest computed at straight 18.5% from date of your receipt of notice of approval, viz:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
x x x x
Failure on your part to comply with these conditions, the Bank will undertake appropriate legal measures to protect its interest.
Please give this matter your preferential attention.61
Acknowledge receipt of your Sept. 27 letter. I would like to finalize documentation of restructuring Diamond L Ranch and Carlos Lim Accounts. However, we would need clarification on amortizations due on NTFI means [sic]. I will call x x x your Legal Department at DBP Head Office by Nov. 11. Pls. advise who[m] I should contact. Thank you.62
- Can the existing obligations of the Mortgagors, if any, be specified in the Restructuring Agreement already?
- Is there a statement showing all the accrued interest and advances that shall first be paid before the restructuring shall be implemented?
- Should Mr. Jun Sarenas Chua and his wife Mrs. Trinidad Chua be required to sign as Mortgagors considering that Mr. Chua is deceased and the pasture lease which he used to hold has already expired?71
We refer to your cattle ranch loan carried at our DBP General Santos City Branch.
Please coordinate immediately with our Branch Head not later than 29 January 1994, to forestall the impending foreclosure action on your account.
Please give the matter your utmost attention.
- Yes to Items No. 1 and 2,
- No longer needed on Item No. 3
This is to inform you that your right of redemption over your former property/ies acquired by the Bank on July 13, 1994, thru Extra-Judicial Foreclosure under Act 3135 will lapse on July 28, 1995.
In view thereof, to entitle you of the maximum condonable amount (Penal Clause, AI on Interest, PC/Default Charges) allowed by the Bank, we are urging you to exercise your right within six (6) months from the date of auction sale on or before January 12, 1995.
Further, failure on your part to exercise your redemption right by July 28, 1995 will constrain us to offer your former property/ies in a public bidding.
Please give this matter your preferential attention. Thank you.82
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
(1) Declaring that the [petitioners] have fully extinguished and discharged their obligation to the [respondent] Bank;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(2) Declaring the foreclosure of [petitioners’] mortgaged properties, the sale of the properties under the foreclosure proceedings and the resultant certificate of sale issued by the foreclosing Sheriff by reason of the foreclosure NULL and VOID;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(3) Ordering the return of the [properties] to [petitioners] free from mortgage liens;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(4) Ordering [respondent] bank to pay [petitioners], actual and compensatory damages of P170,325.80;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(5) Temperate damages of P50,000.00;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary(c) Moral damages of P500,000.00;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(d) Exemplary damages of P500,000.00;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(e) Attorney’s fees in the amount of P100,000.00; and
(f) Expenses of litigation in the amount of P20,000.00.
[Respondent] Bank’s counterclaims are hereby DISMISSED.
[Respondent] Bank is likewise ordered to pay the costs of suit.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated 10 December 1996 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby rendered. It shall now read as follows:cralavvonlinelawlibraryWHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:cralavvonlinelawlibrarySO ORDERED.97
- Ordering the dismissal of the Complaint in Civil Case No. 5608;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
- Declaring the extrajudicial foreclosure of [petitioners’] mortgaged properties as valid;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
- Ordering [petitioners] to pay the [respondent] the amount of Two Million Five Hundred Ninety Two Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Nine [Pesos] and Seventy-Nine Centavos (P2,592,299.79) plus interest and penalties as stipulated in the Promissory Note computed from 11 July 1994 until full payment; and
- Ordering [petitioners] to pay the costs.
1. Whether x x x respondent’s own wanton, reckless and oppressive acts and omissions in discharging its reciprocal obligations to petitioners effectively prevented the petitioners from paying their loan obligations in a proper and suitable manner;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
2. Whether x x x as a result of respondent’s said acts and omissions, petitioners’ obligations should be deemed fully complied with and extinguished in accordance with the principle of constructive fulfillment;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
3. Whether x x x the return by the trial Court of the mortgaged properties to petitioners free from mortgage liens constitutes unjust enrichment;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
4. Whether x x x the low bid price made by the respondent for petitioners’ mortgaged properties during the foreclosure sale is so gross, shocking to the conscience and inherently iniquitous as to constitute sufficient ground for setting aside the foreclosure sale;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
5. Whether x x x the restructuring agreement reached and perfected between the petitioners and the respondent novated and extinguished petitioners’ loan obligations to respondent under the Promissory Notes sued upon; and
6. Whether x x x the respondent should be held liable to pay petitioners actual and compensatory damages, temperate damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation.98
Article 1186 enunciates the doctrine of constructive fulfillment of suspensive conditions, which applies when the following three (3) requisites concur, viz: (1) The condition is suspensive; (2) The obligor actually prevents the fulfillment of the condition; and (3) He acts voluntarily. Suspensive condition is one the happening of which gives rise to the obligation. It will be irrational for any Bank to provide a suspensive condition in the Promissory Note or the Restructuring Agreement that will allow the debtor-promissor to be freed from the duty to pay the loan without paying it.113
11. All correspondence relative to this mortgage, including demand letters, summons, subpoenas, or notification of any judicial or extra-judicial action shall be sent to the Mortgagor at xxx or at the address that may hereafter be given in writing by the Mortgagor or the Mortgagee;118
x x x a contract is the law between the parties and, that absent any showing that its provisions are wholly or in part contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, it shall be enforced to the letter by the courts. Section 3, Act No. 3135 reads:cralavvonlinelawlibrarySec. 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 and city.The Act only requires (1) the posting of notices of sale in three public places, and (2) the publication of the same in a newspaper of general circulation. Personal notice to the mortgagor is not necessary. Nevertheless, the parties to the mortgage contract are not precluded from exacting additional requirements. In this case, petitioner and respondent in entering into a contract of real estate mortgage, agreed inter alia:cralavvonlinelawlibraryall correspondence relative to this mortgage, including demand letters, summonses, subpoenas, or notifications of any judicial or extra-judicial action shall be sent to the MORTGAGOR at 40-42 Aldeguer St. Iloilo City, or at the address that may hereafter be given in writing by the MORTGAGOR to the MORTGAGEE.Precisely, the purpose of the foregoing stipulation is to apprise respondent of any action which petitioner might take on the subject property, thus according him the opportunity to safeguard his rights. When petitioner failed to send the notice of foreclosure sale to respondent, he committed a contractual breach sufficient to render the foreclosure sale on November 23, 1981 null and void.120 (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, in its various statements of account, [respondent] Bank charged [petitioners] for additional interests and penalties which were not stipulated in the promissory notes.
In the Promissory Note, Exhibit “A,” for the principal amount of P960,000.00, only the following interest and penalty charges were stipulated:cralavvonlinelawlibrary(1) interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary[Respondent] bank, however, charged [petitioners] the following items as shown in its Statement of Account for the period as of 31 January 1989, Exhibit “D:”
(2) penalty charge of one-third percent (1/3%) per month on overdue amortization;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(3) attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total indebtedness then unpaid; and
(4) advances and interest thereon at one percent (1%) per month.(1) regular interest in the amount of P561,037.14;chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThe Court finds no basis under the Promissory Note, Exhibit “A,” for charging the additional interest in the amount of P2,590,786.26. Moreover, it is incomprehensible how the penalty charge of 1/3% per month on the overdue amortization could amount to P1,086,147.19 while the regular interest, which was stipulated at the higher rate of 12% per annum, amounted to only P561,037.14 or about half of the amount allegedly due as penalties.
(2) advances in the amount of P34,589.45;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(3) additional interest in the amount of P2,590,786.26; and
4) penalty charges in the amount of P1,068,147.19.
In Exhibit “N,” which is the statement of account x x x as of 15 June 1992, [respondent] bank charged plaintiffs the following items:cralavvonlinelawlibrary(1) regular interest in the amount of P561,037.14;chanroblesvirtualawlibraryAgain, the Court finds no basis in the Promissory Note, Exhibit “A,” for the imposition of additional interest on principal in the amount of P1,233,893.79, additional interest on regular interest in the amount of P859,966.83, penalty charges on regular interest in the amount of P1,146,622.55 and penalty charges on advances in the amount of P40,520.53.
(2) advances in the amount of P106,893.93;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(3) additional interest on principal in the amount of P1,233,893.79;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(4) additional interest on regular interest in the amount of P859,966.83;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(5) additional interest on advances in the amount of P27,206.45;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(6) penalty charges on principal in the amount of P1,639,331.15;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(7) penalty charges on regular interest in the amount of P1,146,622.55;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(8) penalty charges on advances in the amount of P40,520.53.
In the Promissory Note, Exhibit “C,” for the principal amount of P40,000.00, only the following charges were stipulated:cralavvonlinelawlibrary(1) interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) per annum;chanroblesvirtualawlibraryIn its statement of account x x x as of 31 January 1989, Exhibit “E,” [respondent] bank charged [petitioners] with the following items:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
(2) all unpaid amortization[s] shall bear interest at the rate of eleven percent (11%) per annum; and,
(3) attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total indebtedness then unpaid.(1) regular interest in the amount of P5,046.97There was nothing in the Promissory Note, Exhibit “C,” which authorized the imposition of additional interest. Again, this Court notes that the additional interest in the amount of P92,113.56 is even larger than the regular interest in the amount of P5,046.97. Moreover, based on the Promissory Note, Exhibit “C,” if the 11% interest on unpaid amortization is considered an “additional interest,” then there is no basis for [respondent] bank to add penalty charges as there is no other provision providing for this charge. If, on the other hand, the 11% interest on unpaid amortization is considered the penalty charge, then there is no basis to separately charge plaintiffs additional interest. The same provision cannot be used to charge plaintiffs both interest and penalties.
(2) additional interest in the amount of P92,113.56; and
(3) penalty charges in the amount of P39,915.46.
In Exhibit “O,” which is the statement of account x x x as of 15 June 1992, [respondent] charged [petitioners] with the following:cralavvonlinelawlibrary(1) regular interest in the amount of P4,621.25;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary[Respondent] bank failed to show the basis for charging additional interest on principal, additional interest on regular interest and penalty charges on principal and penalty charges on regular interest under items (2), (3), (4) and (5) above.
(2) additional interest on principal in the amount of P65,303.33;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(3) additional interest on regular interest in the amount of P7,544.58;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(4) penalty charges on principal in the amount of P47,493.33;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(5) penalty charges on regular interest in the amount of P5,486.97;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(6) penalty charges on advances in the amount of P40,520.53.
Moreover, [respondent] bank charged [petitioners] twice under the same provisions in the promissory notes. It categorically admitted that the additional interests and penalty charges separately being charged [petitioners] referred to the same provision of the Promissory Notes, Exhibits “A” and “C.” Thus, for the Lim Account in the amount of P40,000.00, [respondent’s] Mr. Ancheta stated:cralavvonlinelawlibraryWith respect to the Diamond L. Ranch account in the amount of P960,000.00, Mr. Ancheta testified as follows:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
Q: In Exhibit 14, it is stated that for a principal amount of P40,000.00 you imposed an additional interest in the amount of P65,303.33 in addition to the regular interest of P7,544.58, can you tell us looking [at] the mortgage contract and promissory note what is your basis for charging that additional interest? A: The same as that when I answered Exhibit No. 3, which shall cover amortization on the principal and interest at the above-mentioned rate. All unpaid amortization[s] shall bear interest at the rate of eleven per centum (11%) per annum. Q: You also imposed penalty which is on the principal in the amount of P40,000.00 in the amount of P47,493.33 in addition to regular interest of P5,486.96. Can you point what portion of Exhibit 3 gives DBP the right to impose such penalty? A: The same paragraph as stated. Q: Can you please read the portion referring to penalty? A: All unpaid amortization shall bear interest at the rate of 11% per annum. Q: The additional interest is based on 11% per annum and the penalty is likewise based on the same rate? A: Yes, it is combined (TSN, 28 May 1996, pp. 39-40.)A perusal of the promissory notes, however, failed to justify [respondent] bank’s computation of both interest and penalty under the same provision in each of the promissory notes.
Q: Going back to Exhibit 14 Statement of Accounts. Out of the principal of P939,973.33 you imposed an additional interest of P1,233,893.79 plus P859,966.83 plus P27,206.45. Can you tell us what is the basis of the imposition? A: As earlier stated, it is only the Promissory Note as well as the Mortgage Contract. Q: Please point to us where in the Promissory Note is the specific portion? A: In Exhibit 1: “in case of failure to pay in full any amortization when due, a penalty charge of 1/3% per month on the overdue amortization shall be paid.” Q: What is the rate? A: 1/3% per month. Q: So, the imposition of the additional interest and the penalty charge is based on the same provision? A: Yes (TSN, 28 May 1996, pp. 41-42.)
[Respondent] bank also admitted that the additional interests and penalties being charged [petitioners] were not based on the stipulations in the Promissory Notes but were imposed unilaterally as a matter of its internal banking policies. (TSN, 19 March 1996, pp. 23-24.) This banking policy, however, has been declared null and void in Philippine National Bank vs. CA, 196 SCRA 536 (1991). The act of [respondent] bank in unilaterally changing the stipulated interest rate is violative of the principle of mutuality of contracts under 1308 of the Civil Code and contravenes 1956 of the Civil Code. [Respondent] bank completely ignored [petitioners’] “right to assent to an important modification in their agreement and (negated) the element of mutuality in contracts.” (Philippine National Bank vs. CA, G.R. No. 109563, 9 July 1996; Philippine National Bank vs. CA, 238 SCRA 20 1994). As in the PNB cases, [petitioners] herein never agreed in writing to pay the additional interest, or the penalties, as fixed by [respondent] bank; hence [respondent] bank’s imposition of additional interest and penalties is null and void.122 (Emphasis supplied)
Moral damages are not recoverable simply because a contract has been breached. They are recoverable only if the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations. The breach must be wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith, and oppressive or abusive. Likewise, a breach of contract may give rise to exemplary damages only if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
We are not sufficiently convinced that PNB acted fraudulently, in bad faith, or in wanton disregard of its contractual obligations, simply because it increased the interest rates and delayed the foreclosure of the mortgages. Bad faith cannot be imputed simply because the defendant acted with bad judgment or with attendant negligence. Bad faith is more than these; it pertains to a dishonest purpose, to some moral obliquity, or to the conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a known duty attributable to a motive, interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. Proof of actions of this character is undisputably lacking in this case. Consequently, we do not find the spouses Rocamora entitled to an award of moral and exemplary damages. Under these circumstances, neither should they recover attorney’s fees and litigation expense. These awards are accordingly deleted.124 (Emphasis supplied)
* Also referred to as Eduardo Lim in some parts of the records.cralawlibrary
** Also referred to as Shirley Leocadio Dizon in some parts of the records.cralawlibrary
1Metropolitan Bank v. Wong, 412 Phil. 207, 220 (2001).cralawlibrary
2Rollo, pp. 58-156.cralawlibrary
3 CA rollo, pp. 238-284; penned by Associate Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Jane Aurora C. Lantion.cralawlibrary
4 The loan was granted by DBP of Davao Branch. However, on January 14, 1972, the loan account was transferred to DBP General Santos Branch. (Exhibit “38,” Folder of Exhibits for DBP)
5 Records, p. 35.cralawlibrary
7 As per this Court’s Resolution dated January 16, 2008, the name of Trinidad D. Chua was dropped as petitioner in the absence of a Special Power of Attorney authorizing petitioner Edmundo T. Lim to sign the verification of the petition in behalf of Trinidad D. Chua (Rollo, p. 550).cralawlibrary
8 The loan was granted by DBP Davao Branch. However, on January 14, 1972, the loan account was transferred to DBP General Santos Branch. (Exhibit “38,” Folder of Exhibits for DBP)
9Rollo, p. 213.cralawlibrary
10 Records, p. 26.cralawlibrary
11 Id. at 27-34.cralawlibrary
12 Id. at 3.cralawlibrary
13 Id. at 279.cralawlibrary
15 CA rollo, p. 241.cralawlibrary
16 Records, p. 279.cralawlibrary
18 Exhibit “D,” Folder of Exhibits for petitioners.cralawlibrary
19 Exhibit “L,” id.cralawlibrary
20 Records, p. 280.cralawlibrary
21 Exhibit “F,” Folder of Exhibits for petitioners.cralawlibrary
22 Exhibit “G,” id.cralawlibrary
23 Records, p. 282.cralawlibrary
25 Exhibit “H,” Folder of Exhibits for petitioners.cralawlibrary
26 Records, p. 282.cralawlibrary
27 Exhibit “I,” Folder of Exhibits for petitioners.cralawlibrary
28 Records, p. 282.cralawlibrary
30 Id. at 282-283.cralawlibrary
31 Id. at 283.cralawlibrary
32 Exhibit “J,” Folder of Exhibits for petitioners.cralawlibrary
33 Exhibit “K,” id.cralawlibrary
34 Exhibits “N” and “O,” id.cralawlibrary
35 Exhibit “M,” id.cralawlibrary
36 Exhibit “P,” id.cralawlibrary
37 Records, p. 285.cralawlibrary
38 CA rollo, p. 257.cralawlibrary
40 Records, p. 285.cralawlibrary
41 CA rollo, pp. 251-252.cralawlibrary
42 Records, p. 286.cralawlibrary
46 Exhibit “R,” Folder of Exhibits for petitioners.cralawlibrary
47 Exhibit “S,” id.cralawlibrary
48 Exhibit “V,” id.cralawlibrary
49 Records, p. 288.cralawlibrary
50 Exhibit “W,” Folder of Exhibits for petitioners.cralawlibrary
52 Exhibit “X,” id.cralawlibrary
54 Exhibit “Y,” id.cralawlibrary
55 Id. at 229-230.cralawlibrary
56 Exhibit “Z,” Folder of Exhibits for petitioners.cralawlibrary
57 Exhibit “AA,” id.cralawlibrary
58 CA rollo, p. 259.cralawlibrary
61 Exhibit “BB,” Folder of Exhibits for petitioners.cralawlibrary
62 Exhibit “CCC,” id.cralawlibrary
63 Records, pp. 291-292.cralawlibrary
64 Id. at 292
66 CA rollo, pp. 242-243.cralawlibrary
67 Records, p. 293.cralawlibrary
68 Exhibit “HH,” Folder of Exhibits for petitioners.cralawlibrary
69 CA rollo, p. 265.cralawlibrary
70 Exhibit “II,” Folder of Exhibits for petitioners.cralawlibrary
73 Exhibit “II-1,” id.cralawlibrary
74 Exhibit “JJ,” id.cralawlibrary
75 Records, p. 294.cralawlibrary
76 CA rollo, p. 264.cralawlibrary
77 Exhibit “49,” Folder of Exhibits for DBP.cralawlibrary
78 Exhibit “50,” id.cralawlibrary
79 Exhibit “52,” id.cralawlibrary
80 CA rollo, p. 268.cralawlibrary
81 Exhibit “KK,” Folder of Exhibits for petitioners.cralawlibrary
83 Records, pp. 1-25.cralawlibrary
84 Id. at 23-24.cralawlibrary
85 Id. at 62-63.cralawlibrary
86 Id. at 129-131.cralawlibrary
87 Id. at 146-160.cralawlibrary
88 Id. at 150.cralawlibrary
89 Id. at 151.cralawlibrary
92 Id. at 153.cralawlibrary
93 AN ACT TO REGULATE THE SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER SPECIAL POWERS INSERTED IN OR ANNEXED TO REAL ESTATE MORTGAGES, as amended. Approved March 6, 1924.cralawlibrary
94 Records, p. 152.cralawlibrary
95 Id. at 368-420; penned by Judge Teodoro A. Dizon, Jr.cralawlibrary
96 Id. at 419-420.cralawlibrary
97 CA rollo, p. 283. Emphases in the original.cralawlibrary
98Rollo, pp. 578-579.cralawlibrary
99 Id. at 584-602.cralawlibrary
100 Id. at 603-627.cralawlibrary
101 Id. at 639-643.cralawlibrary
102 Id. at 636-638.cralawlibrary
103 Id. at 643-658.cralawlibrary
104 Id. at 658-665.cralawlibrary
105 Id. at 665-677.cralawlibrary
106 Id. at 712-719.cralawlibrary
107 Id. at 714-715.cralawlibrary
108 Id. at 715.cralawlibrary
109 Id. at 719-722.cralawlibrary
110 Id. at 722-728.cralawlibrary
111 Id. at 728-731.cralawlibrary
112 CA rollo, p. 275.cralawlibrary
114 Id. at 242-243.cralawlibrary
115Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 768, 796 (1998).cralawlibrary
116 Global Holiday Ownership Corporation v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, G.R. No. 184081, June 19, 2009, 590 SCRA 188, 201.cralawlibrary
117 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.cralawlibrary
118 Exhibit “B,” Folder of Exhibits for petitioners.cralawlibrary
119 Supra note 1.cralawlibrary
120 Id. at 216-217.cralawlibrary
121 Prisma Construction & Development Corporation v. Menchavez, G.R. No. 160545, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 590, 598.cralawlibrary
122 Records, pp. 385-390.cralawlibrary
123 G.R. No. 164549, September 18, 2009, 600 SCRA 395.cralawlibrary
124 Id. at 411-412.