This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-02-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to petitioner's argument that the sheriff in charge of the auction sale is required to execute an affidavit of posting of notices, the Court agrees with private respondents' contention that petitioner's reliance on the provisions of Section 5, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 720, as amended by R.A. No. 5939[30], as well as on the cases of Roxas v. Court of Appeals,[31] Pulido v. Court of Appeals[32] and Tambunting v. Court of Appeals,[33] is misplaced as the said provision of law refers specifically and exclusively to the foreclosure of mortgages covering loans granted by rural banks. In the present case, the contracts of loan and mortgage are between private individuals. The governing law, insofar as the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings are concerned, is Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118.[34] Section 3 of the said law reads as follows:Sec. 3. Notice shall be given by posting notices of the sale for not less than twenty days in at least three public places of the municipality or city where the property is situated and if such property is worth more than four hundred pesos, such notice shall also be published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city. Unlike in the amended provisions of Section 5, R.A. No. 720, nowhere in the above-quoted provision of Act No. 3135, as amended, or in any Section thereof, is it required that the sheriff must execute an affidavit to prove that he published notices of foreclosure in accordance with the requirements of law. | |||||