Scribd
Upload
147 views1 page

105 - Spouses Certeza v. Philippine Savings Bank (G.R. No. 190078 - Mar 5, 2010)

The petitioners obtained a loan from Philippine Savings Bank secured by a mortgage over two parcels of land. They failed to pay the loan and PSB foreclosed on the property, bidding and winning itself as the sole bidder. The petitioners argued the foreclosure was irregular for failing to comply with the two-bidder rule, but the Supreme Court ruled the two-bidder rule does not apply to private foreclosure of mortgages. The Court also found no evidence the foreclosure notice was misleading or aimed to reduce the property's value. Therefore, the foreclosure was conducted regularly and the writ of possession was properly granted.

Uploaded by

attymaryjoyordaneza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
147 views1 page

105 - Spouses Certeza v. Philippine Savings Bank (G.R. No. 190078 - Mar 5, 2010)

The petitioners obtained a loan from Philippine Savings Bank secured by a mortgage over two parcels of land. They failed to pay the loan and PSB foreclosed on the property, bidding and winning itself as the sole bidder. The petitioners argued the foreclosure was irregular for failing to comply with the two-bidder rule, but the Supreme Court ruled the two-bidder rule does not apply to private foreclosure of mortgages. The Court also found no evidence the foreclosure notice was misleading or aimed to reduce the property's value. Therefore, the foreclosure was conducted regularly and the writ of possession was properly granted.

Uploaded by

attymaryjoyordaneza
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

105. Sps. Certeza v. Philippine Savings Bank (G.R. No.

190078; March 5, 2010)

Facts: Petitioners obtained a loan from PSB which is secured by a mortgage over two parcels
of land. They eventually failed to pay the loan and an Extrajudicial Foreclosure was
executed. PSB was the only bidder and a certificate of sale was awarded to it. During the
period of redemption, PSB filed for Writ of Possession with the RTC; it was granted. The
petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to intervene with the Writ of Possession on the ground of
the irregularities in the conduct of the Foreclosure Sale. Such Motion was denied both by RTC
and CA stating that the issuance of the Writ of Possession is a ministerial duty and that the
Foreclosure was done regularly.

Issue: Whether the Foreclosure of the mortgage should be declared null and void for failure
to comply with the two-bidder rule.

Held: No. A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, as amended, no longer prescribes the requirement of at least
two bidders for a valid auction sale. Such a requirement only applies to government bidding
procedure which involves public interest and not to private foreclosure of mortgages where
private interest is predominant.

Furthermore, except for errors or omissions in the notice of sale which are calculated to
mislead bidders, to depreciate the value of the property, or to prevent it from bringing a fair
price, simple mistakes or omissions are not considered fatal to the validity of the notice and
the sale made pursuant thereto.

In application with the present case, the extrajudicial foreclosure is conducted


regularly, as well as the issuance of the writ of possession. The petition is dismissed.

You might also like