PNB VS CABATINGAN

Facts:
Respondent spouses Cabatingan obtained two loans, secured by a real estate mortgage in
the total amount of P421,200 from petitioner. However, they were unable to fully pay
their obligation despite having been granted more than enough time to do so.
Thus, petitioner extrajudicially foreclosed on the mortgage
Thereafter, a notice of extrajudicial sale was issued stating that the foreclosed properties
would be sold at public auction
Pursuant to the notice, the properties were sold at public auction
The auction began with petitioner as the highest bidder.
respondent spouses then filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City a
complaint for annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage and the
auction salel, invoking Section 4 of Act 3135 which provides:
Section 4. The sale shall be made at public auction, between the hours of nine in the
morning and four in the afternoon

Petitioners claimed that the provision must be observed strictly. Thus, because the public
auction of the foreclosed properties was held for only 20 minutes (instead of seven hours
as required by law), the consequent sale was void.

Ruling:
A creditor may foreclose on a real estate mortgage only if the debtor fails to pay the
principal obligation when it falls due. Nonetheless, the foreclosure of a mortgage does
not ipso facto extinguish a debtors obligation to his creditor. The proceeds of a sale at
public auction may not be sufficient to extinguish the liability of the former to the latter.
For this reason, the Court favors a construction of Section 4 of Act 3135 that affords the
creditor greater opportunity to satisfy his claim without unduly rewarding the debtor for
not paying his just debt.
Section 4 of Act 3135 provides that the Sale must take place between the hours of nine in
the morning and four in the afternoon. The word between ordinarily means in the time
interval that separates. Thus, between the hours of nine in the morning and four in the
afternoon merely provides a time frame within which an auction sale may be conducted.
Therefore, a sale at public auction held within the intervening period provided by law
SAYSON vs. LUNA

Facts:

The complainants alleged that one Gregorio Rellorosa informed them that his car would
be levied upon pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the MeTC of Quezon City, and
that it was scheduled on July 15, 1999 to be sold at public auction

Rellorosa requested them to participate in the bidding, to which they agreed, subject to
the condition that in case one of them would win the bid, they would allow Rellorosa to
redeem the car within one year at the bid price plus accrued interest.
The complainants alleged that they met Rellorosa and agreed to pool their resources so
that they would come out as the highest bidder. Upon being told that the scheduled
auction sale had been postponed to July 19, the complainants left. They later learned from
Rellorosa that the respondent sheriff conducted the auction sale of the said car that same
day
The respondent avers that he advised Gregorio to wait for the plaintiff, but Rellorosa
immediately left.
RTC Judge recommended the exoneration of the respondent, and opined that the latter
was able to substantially comply with the requirements for the conduct of a public
auction.

Ruling:

a sheriffs duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial he is to execute the order of
the court strictly to the letter, and he has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or
not
such notice was served on July 8, 1999, or more than five (5) days before the scheduled
auction sale.
Furthermore, a sheriffs report, in this case the Minutes of the Auction Sale, as a
document, is clothed with the presumption of regularity, and since it was not objected to
by the complainant, it must be upheld.