PBN VS. SPS. CABATINGAN, GR. NO. 167058, 9 JULY 2008

PBN VS. SPS. CABATINGAN,

GR. NO. 167058, 9 JULY 2008

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

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 (i.e., at any time from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.) is valid, without regard to the duration or length of time it took the auctioneer to conduct the proceedings.

FACTS

Respondent spouses Cabatingan obtained two loans, secured by a real estate mortgage, in the total amount of P421, 200 from petitioner Philippine National Bank. However, they were unable to fully pay their obligation despite having been granted more than enough time to do so. Thus, on September 25, 1991, petitioner extrajudicially foreclosed on the mortgage pursuant to Act 3135. Thereafter, a notice of extrajudicial sale was issued stating that the foreclosed properties would be sold at public auction on November 5, 1991 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. at the main entrance of the office of the Clerk of Court on San Pedro St., Ormoc City. Pursuant to the notice, the properties were sold at public auction on November 5, 1991. The auction began at 9:00 a.m. and was concluded after 20 minutes with petitioner as the highest bidder.

Respondent spouses filed a complaint with the RTC of Ormocfor annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage and the November 5, 1991 auction sale. They invoked 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, and shall be under the direction of the sheriff of the province, the justice or auxiliary justice of peace of the municipality in which such sale has to be made, or of a notary public of said municipality, who shall be entitled to collect a fee of Five pesos for each day of actual work performed, in addition to his expenses.  

Petitioners claimed that the provision quoted above 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. The RTC ruled in favor of Sps. Cabatingan and annulled the sale of public auction.

ISSUE

Whether a sale at public auction, to be valid, must be conducted the whole day from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. of the scheduled auction day.

RULING

Yes.

The court held that 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 (i.e., at any time from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.) is valid, without regard to the duration or length of time it took the auctioneer to conduct the proceedings.

Here, the court held that the November 5, 1991 sale at public auction took place from 9:00 a.m. to 9:20 a.m. Since it was conducted within the time frame provided by law, the sale was valid.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459