Fiestan vs CA

Leave a comment
G.R. No. 81552 May 28, 1990
FACTS:
Petitioners spouses Dionisio Fiestan and Juanita Arconada were the owners of a parcel of land
wituated in Ilocos Sur which they mortgaged to the DBP as security for their P22,400.00 loan.
For failure of petitioners to pay their mortgage indebtedness, the lot was acquired by the DBP as
the highest bidder at a public auction sale after it was extrajudicially foreclosed by the DBP. A
certificate of sale was subsequently issued by the Provincial Sheriff on the same day and the
same was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds. Earlier, petitioners executed a Deed
of Sale in favor of DBP which was likewise registered. Upon failure of petitioners to redeem the
property within the one-year period, petitioners TCT lot was cancelled by the Register of Deeds
and in lieu thereof, it was issued to the DBP upon presentation of a duly executed affidavit of
consolidation of ownership. The DBP sold the lot to Francisco and the same was registered in the
Office of the Register of Deeds. Subsequently, the DBPs title over the lot was cancelled and in
lieu thereof, the TCT was issued to Francisco Peria.
Francisco Peria secured a tax declaration for said lot and accordingly paid the taxes due thereon.
He thereafter mortgaged to the PNB as security for his loan of P15,000.00 as required by the
bank to increase his original loan since petitioners were still in possession of the lot, the
Provincial Sheriff ordered them to vacate the premises. On the other hand, petitioners filed on
August 23, 1982 a complaint for annulment of sale, mortgage and cancellation of transfer
certificates of title against the DBP, PNB, Francisco Peria and the Register of Deeds before the
RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not that the extrajudicial foreclosure sale is null and void by virtue of lack of a valid
levy.
HELD:
No. The formalities of a levy, as an essential requisite of a valid execution sale under Section 15
of Rule 39 and a valid attachment lien under Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, are not basic
requirements before an extrajudicially foreclosed property be sold at public auction. The case at
bar, as the facts disclose, involves an extrajudicial foreclosure sale.
In extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, the property sought to be foreclosed need not be
identified or set apart by the sheriff from the whole mass of property of the mortgagor for the
purpose of satisfying the mortgage indebtedness. For, the essence of a contract of mortgage
indebtedness is that a property has been identified or set apart from the mass of the property of
the debtor-mortgagor as security for the payment or fulfillment of the obligation to answer the
amount of indebtedness, in case of default of payment. By virtue of the special power inserted or
attached to the mortgage contract, the mortgagor has authorized the mortgagee-creditor or any
other person authorized to act for him to sell said property in accordance with the formalities
required under Act No. 3135, as amended.
Bagatsing vs. Ramirez
GR L-41631, 17 December 1976

En Banc, Martin (J): 7 concur, 1 concur with qualification, 1 reserved vote

Facts: In 1974, the Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance 7522, regulating the operation
of public markets and prescribing fees for the rentals of stalls and providing penalties for
violation thereof. The Federation of Manila Market Vendors Inc. assailed the validity of the
ordinance, alleging among others the non-compliance to the publication requirement under the
Revised Charter of the City of Manila.
Issue: Whether the publication requirement was complied with.
Held: The Revised Charter of the City of Manila is a special act since it relates only to the City
of Manila, whereas the Local Tax Code id a general law because it applies universally to all local
governments. Section 17 of the Charter speaks of ordinance in general. Whereas, Section 43 of
the Local Tax Code relates to ordinances levying or imposing taxes, fees or other charges in
particular. While the Charter requires publication, before the enactment of the ordinance and
after approval thereof, in two daily newspapers of the general circulation in the city, the Local
Tax Code only prescribes for publication widely circulated within the jurisdiction of the local
government or by posting the ordinance in the local legislative hall or premises and in two other
conspicuous places within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government. Being a general
law with a special provision applicable in the case, the Local Tax Code prevails.