EN BANC
[G.R. No. 46029. April 24, 1939. ]
THE NATIONAL LOAN AND INVESTMENT BOARD, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LUIS MENESES, Defendant-Appellant.
Luis Meneses in his own behalf.
Ramon Diokno for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. MORTGAGE; WRIT OF EXECUTION. — The defendant having stipulated that the court should issue a writ of execution of the mortgage should he fail to pay the amount of the indebtedness with interest, he may not impugn the writ of execution issued pursuant to what he himself had stipulated.
2. ID.; SALE AT PUBLIC AUCTION; INADEQUATE PRICE. — This court has repeatedly held that the fact that a property is sold at public auction for a price lower than its alleged value, is not of itself sufficient to annul said sale, where there has been strict compliance with all the requisites marked out by law to obtain the highest possible price, and where there is no showing that a better price is obtainable.
2. ID.; SALE AT PUBLIC AUCTION; INADEQUATE PRICE. — This court has repeatedly held that the fact that a property is sold at public auction for a price lower than its alleged value, is not of itself sufficient to annul said sale, where there has been strict compliance with all the requisites marked out by law to obtain the highest possible price, and where there is no showing that a better price is obtainable.
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, confirming the public sale made in favor of the plaintiff-appellee, National Loan and Investment Board, of the property mortgaged to it. The appellant opposed the confirmation of the said sale: (1) Because the judgment of the court had not ordered the foreclosure of the mortgage, and the order of execution not being in accordance with and in excess of said judgment, is null and void; and (2) because the price of the sale whereby the property was adjudicated to the plaintiff-appellee, as the highest bidder, is inadequate.
As to the first ground, it appears that the defendant and the plaintiff submitted a stipulation of facts, wherein the defendant confessed being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of P42,430.96 on January 28, 1937, plus the interest thereon. Thereunder the defendant would be given six months, from March 16, 1937, to pay the judgment which may be rendered for the said amount, and should he fail to pay the same, a writ of execution would be levied upon the mortgaged property and any other property to make good the deficiency. Pursuant to this stipulation, judgment was rendered ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff, within six months from March 16, 1937, the amount of P42,430.96, with interest thereon at eight per cent (8%) per annum and ten per cent (10%) per annum upon accrued interest, from January 28, 1937 until complete payment. From this judgment the defendant did not appeal.
For failure of the latter to pay the said amount and interest, a writ of execution was issued On October 7, 1937, ordering the sheriff to sell the mortgaged property described in the writ at public auction to the highest bidder.
The judgment did not expressly order the public sale of the mortgaged property for failure to pay the amount owing, but there being a stipulation by the defendant that the court should issue a writ of execution of the mortgage should he fail to pay the amount of the indebtedness with interest, the defendant-appellant may not impugn the writ of execution issued pursuant to what he himself had stipulated.
As to the inadequacy of the price of the sale, this court has repeatedly held that the fact that a property is sold at public auction for a price lower than its alleged value, is not of itself sufficient to annul said sale, where there has been strict compliance with all the requisites marked out by law to obtain the highest possible price, and where there is no showing that a better price is obtainable. (Government of the Philippines v. De Asis, G. R. No. 45483, April 12, 1939; Guerrero v. Guerrero, 57 Phil., 442; La Urbana v. Belando, 54 Phil., 930; Bank of the Philippine Islands . Green, 52 Phil., 491.)
The appealed order is affirmed, with the costs to the appellant. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Moran, JJ., concur.
As to the first ground, it appears that the defendant and the plaintiff submitted a stipulation of facts, wherein the defendant confessed being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of P42,430.96 on January 28, 1937, plus the interest thereon. Thereunder the defendant would be given six months, from March 16, 1937, to pay the judgment which may be rendered for the said amount, and should he fail to pay the same, a writ of execution would be levied upon the mortgaged property and any other property to make good the deficiency. Pursuant to this stipulation, judgment was rendered ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff, within six months from March 16, 1937, the amount of P42,430.96, with interest thereon at eight per cent (8%) per annum and ten per cent (10%) per annum upon accrued interest, from January 28, 1937 until complete payment. From this judgment the defendant did not appeal.
For failure of the latter to pay the said amount and interest, a writ of execution was issued On October 7, 1937, ordering the sheriff to sell the mortgaged property described in the writ at public auction to the highest bidder.
The judgment did not expressly order the public sale of the mortgaged property for failure to pay the amount owing, but there being a stipulation by the defendant that the court should issue a writ of execution of the mortgage should he fail to pay the amount of the indebtedness with interest, the defendant-appellant may not impugn the writ of execution issued pursuant to what he himself had stipulated.
As to the inadequacy of the price of the sale, this court has repeatedly held that the fact that a property is sold at public auction for a price lower than its alleged value, is not of itself sufficient to annul said sale, where there has been strict compliance with all the requisites marked out by law to obtain the highest possible price, and where there is no showing that a better price is obtainable. (Government of the Philippines v. De Asis, G. R. No. 45483, April 12, 1939; Guerrero v. Guerrero, 57 Phil., 442; La Urbana v. Belando, 54 Phil., 930; Bank of the Philippine Islands . Green, 52 Phil., 491.)
The appealed order is affirmed, with the costs to the appellant. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Moran, JJ., concur.
