Lawyerly

GR No. 176549

2016-01-20

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. ROMEO C. CARRIEDO

JARDELEZA, J.

Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[69] Where a party sleeps on his rights and allows laches to set in, the same is fatal to his case.[70]

GR No. 195272

2015-01-14

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. DAVID M. CASTRO AND CONSUELO B. CASTRO

PEREZ, J.

Petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), being the successor-in-interest of Prudential Bank, by virtue of the merger of the two banking institutions with BPI as the surviving entity, filed the instant petition for review defending the ruling of the trial court and reiterating that the published Notice of Sheriff's Sale would show that the subject of the sale, the Quezon City property, was sufficiently and properly described and identified. Petitioner refuted the appellate court's finding that by indicating a lower amount of indebtedness, the notice depreciated the value of the property subject of sale. Petitioner cited Olizon v. Court of Appeals,[12] wherein the court declared that immaterial errors and mistakes cannot affect the sufficiency of the notice. Petitioner reiterated Prudential Bank's right to foreclose the mortgage constituted over the Quezon City property because the loan secured by the mortgage had not been paid when it fell due and remained so when the mortgage was scheduled for foreclosure.[13]

GR No. 159926

2014-01-20

PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE v. FAR EAST BANK

BERSAMIN, J.

Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence could nor should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[41] Its other name is stale demands, and it is based upon grounds of public policy that requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.[42] The existence of four elements must be shown in order to validate laches as a defense, to wit: (a) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom a claim is made, giving rise to a situation for which a complaint is filed and a remedy sought; (b) delay in asserting the rights of the complainant, who has knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct and has been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (c) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant will assert the right on which the latter has based the suit; and (d) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event that the complainant is granted a relief or the suit is not deemed barred.[43]

GR No. 176212

2010-10-20

CENTURY SAVINGS BANK v. SPS. DANILO T. SAMONTE AND ROSALINDA M. SAMONTE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In Olizon v. Court of Appeals,[28] the Court expounded on the purpose for giving notice of the foreclosure sale; and if such purpose could be attained by publication alone, then the absence of actual posting should not nullify the sale. Thus: We take judicial notice of the fact that newspaper publications have more far-reaching effects than posting on bulletin boards in public places. There is a greater probability that an announcement or notice published in a newspaper of general circulation, which is distributed nationwide, shall have a readership of more people than that posted in a public bulletin board, no matter how strategic its location may be, which caters only to a limited few. Hence, the publication of the notice of sale in the newspaper of general circulation alone is more than sufficient compliance with the notice-posting requirement of the law. By such publication, a reasonably wide publicity had been effected such that those interested might attend the public sale, and the purpose of the law had been thereby subserved.

GR No. 182735

2009-12-04

SPS. ROGELIO MARCELO AND MILAGROS MARCELO v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Quoting Olizon v. Court of Appeals,[36] the trial court declared that the lack of personal notice to the mortgagors is not a ground to set aside the foreclosure sale. Notices are given for the purpose of securing bidders and preventing a sacrifice of the property. If these objects are attained, immaterial errors and mistakes will not affect the sufficiency of the notice.

GR No. 170540

2009-10-28

BALATICO v. RODRIGUEZ

PERALTA, J.

It is settled that registration in the public registry is notice to the whole world.[32] Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing or entering.[33] Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the title. Such presumption may not be rebutted. He is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact shown by the record and to know every fact which an examination of the record would have disclosed. This presumption cannot be overcome by any claim of innocence or good faith. Otherwise, the very purpose and object of the law requiring a record would be destroyed. Such presumption cannot be defeated by proof of want of knowledge of what the record contains any more than one may be permitted to show that he was ignorant of the provisions of the law. The rule that all persons must take notice of the facts which the public record contains is a rule of law. The rule must be absolute; any variation would lead to endless confusion and useless litigation.[34] In the present case, since the mortgage contract was registered, petitioner may not claim lack of knowledge thereof as a valid defense. The subsequent sale of the property to petitioner's husband cannot defeat the rights of PNB as the mortgagee and, subsequently, the purchaser at the auction sale whose rights were derived from a prior mortgage validly registered.

GR No. 160236

2009-10-16

'G' HOLDINGS v. NATIONAL MINES

NACHURA, J.

Under the Torrens system, registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. Further, entrenched in our jurisdiction is the doctrine that registration in a public registry creates constructive notice to the whole world.[56] Thus, Section 51 of Act No. 496, as amended by Section 52 of P.D. No. 1529, provides: SECTION 52. Constructive notice upon registration. Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing or entering.

GR No. 184252

2009-09-11

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. SPS. WENCESLAO AND MARCELINA MARTIR

The object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of the nature and condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place and terms of the sale. Notices are given for the purpose of securing bidders and to prevent a sacrifice of the property. If these objects are attained, immaterial errors and mistakes will not affect the sufficiency of the notice; but if mistakes or omissions occur in the notices of sale, which are calculated to deter or mislead bidders, to depreciate the value of the property, or to prevent it from bringing a fair price, such mistakes or omissions will be fatal to the validity of the notice, and also to the sale made pursuant thereto.[16]

GR No. 173976

2009-02-27

METROPOLITAN BANK v. EUGENIO PEÑAFIEL

NACHURA, J.

The object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of the nature and condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place and terms of the sale. Notices are given for the purpose of securing bidders and to prevent a sacrifice of the property.[19] The goal of the notice requirement is to achieve a "reasonably wide publicity" of the auction sale. This is why publication in a newspaper of general circulation is required. The Court has previously taken judicial notice of the "far-reaching effects" of publishing the notice of sale in a newspaper of general circulation.[20]

GR No. 163130

2007-09-07

SAN ROQUE REALTY v. REPUBLIC

NACHURA, J.

Laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[37]

GR NO. 170215

2007-08-28

SPS. ESMERALDO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Notices are given for the purpose of securing bidders and to prevent a sacrifice of the property. If these objects are attained, immaterial errors and mistakes will not affect the sufficiency of the notice; but if mistakes or omissions occur in the notices of sale, which are calculated to deter or mislead bidders, to depreciate the value of the property, or to prevent it from bringing a fair price, such mistakes or omissions will be fatal to the validity of the notice, and also to the sale made pursuant thereto.[21]

GR No. 144435

2007-02-06

GUILLERMINA BALUYUT v. EULOGIO POBLETE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The Court's ruling in Olizon v. Court of Appeals,[28] insofar as posting and publication requirements in mortgage foreclosure sales are concerned, is instructive:We take judicial notice of the fact that newspaper publications have more far-reaching effects than posting on bulletin boards in public places. There is a greater probability that an announcement or notice published in a newspaper of general circulation, which is distributed nationwide, shall have a readership of more people than that posted in a public bulletin board, no matter how strategic its location may be, which caters only to a limited few. Hence, the publication of the notice of sale in [a] newspaper of general circulation alone is more than sufficient compliance with the notice-posting requirement of the law. By such publication, a reasonably wide publicity had been effected such that those interested might attend the public sale, and the purpose of the law had been thereby subserved.

GR No. 125838

2003-06-10

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Moreover, ERHC bore the burden of presenting evidence that the sheriffs failed to post the notices of sale.[20] In the absence of contrary evidence, as in this case, the presumption prevails that the sheriffs performed their official duty of posting the notices of sale. Consequently, we hold that the non-execution of the certificate of posting cannot nullify the foreclosure of the chattel and real estate mortgages in the instant case.

	GR No. 176549 2016-01-20	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. ROMEO C. CARRIEDO JARDELEZA, J.
Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[69] Where a party sleeps on his rights and allows laches to set in, the same is fatal to his case.[70]
	GR No. 195272 2015-01-14	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SPS. DAVID M. CASTRO AND CONSUELO B. CASTRO PEREZ, J.
Petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), being the successor-in-interest of Prudential Bank, by virtue of the merger of the two banking institutions with BPI as the surviving entity, filed the instant petition for review defending the ruling of the trial court and reiterating that the published Notice of Sheriff's Sale would show that the subject of the sale, the Quezon City property, was sufficiently and properly described and identified. Petitioner refuted the appellate court's finding that by indicating a lower amount of indebtedness, the notice depreciated the value of the property subject of sale. Petitioner cited Olizon v. Court of Appeals,[12] wherein the court declared that immaterial errors and mistakes cannot affect the sufficiency of the notice. Petitioner reiterated Prudential Bank's right to foreclose the mortgage constituted over the Quezon City property because the loan secured by the mortgage had not been paid when it fell due and remained so when the mortgage was scheduled for foreclosure.[13]
	GR No. 159926 2014-01-20	PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE v. FAR EAST BANK BERSAMIN, J.
Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence could nor should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[41] Its other name is stale demands, and it is based upon grounds of public policy that requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.[42] The existence of four elements must be shown in order to validate laches as a defense, to wit: (a) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom a claim is made, giving rise to a situation for which a complaint is filed and a remedy sought; (b) delay in asserting the rights of the complainant, who has knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct and has been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (c) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant will assert the right on which the latter has based the suit; and (d) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event that the complainant is granted a relief or the suit is not deemed barred.[43]
	GR No. 176212 2010-10-20	CENTURY SAVINGS BANK v. SPS. DANILO T. SAMONTE AND ROSALINDA M. SAMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Olizon v. Court of Appeals,[28] the Court expounded on the purpose for giving notice of the foreclosure sale; and if such purpose could be attained by publication alone, then the absence of actual posting should not nullify the sale. Thus: We take judicial notice of the fact that newspaper publications have more far-reaching effects than posting on bulletin boards in public places. There is a greater probability that an announcement or notice published in a newspaper of general circulation, which is distributed nationwide, shall have a readership of more people than that posted in a public bulletin board, no matter how strategic its location may be, which caters only to a limited few. Hence, the publication of the notice of sale in the newspaper of general circulation alone is more than sufficient compliance with the notice-posting requirement of the law. By such publication, a reasonably wide publicity had been effected such that those interested might attend the public sale, and the purpose of the law had been thereby subserved.
	GR No. 182735 2009-12-04	SPS. ROGELIO MARCELO AND MILAGROS MARCELO v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Quoting Olizon v. Court of Appeals,[36] the trial court declared that the lack of personal notice to the mortgagors is not a ground to set aside the foreclosure sale. Notices are given for the purpose of securing bidders and preventing a sacrifice of the property. If these objects are attained, immaterial errors and mistakes will not affect the sufficiency of the notice.
	GR No. 170540 2009-10-28	BALATICO v. RODRIGUEZ PERALTA, J.
It is settled that registration in the public registry is notice to the whole world.[32] Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing or entering.[33] Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the title. Such presumption may not be rebutted. He is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact shown by the record and to know every fact which an examination of the record would have disclosed. This presumption cannot be overcome by any claim of innocence or good faith. Otherwise, the very purpose and object of the law requiring a record would be destroyed. Such presumption cannot be defeated by proof of want of knowledge of what the record contains any more than one may be permitted to show that he was ignorant of the provisions of the law. The rule that all persons must take notice of the facts which the public record contains is a rule of law. The rule must be absolute; any variation would lead to endless confusion and useless litigation.[34] In the present case, since the mortgage contract was registered, petitioner may not claim lack of knowledge thereof as a valid defense. The subsequent sale of the property to petitioner's husband cannot defeat the rights of PNB as the mortgagee and, subsequently, the purchaser at the auction sale whose rights were derived from a prior mortgage validly registered.
	GR No. 160236 2009-10-16	'G' HOLDINGS v. NATIONAL MINES NACHURA, J.
Under the Torrens system, registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. Further, entrenched in our jurisdiction is the doctrine that registration in a public registry creates constructive notice to the whole world.[56] Thus, Section 51 of Act No. 496, as amended by Section 52 of P.D. No. 1529, provides: SECTION 52. Constructive notice upon registration. Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing or entering.
	GR No. 184252 2009-09-11	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. SPS. WENCESLAO AND MARCELINA MARTIR
The object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of the nature and condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place and terms of the sale. Notices are given for the purpose of securing bidders and to prevent a sacrifice of the property. If these objects are attained, immaterial errors and mistakes will not affect the sufficiency of the notice; but if mistakes or omissions occur in the notices of sale, which are calculated to deter or mislead bidders, to depreciate the value of the property, or to prevent it from bringing a fair price, such mistakes or omissions will be fatal to the validity of the notice, and also to the sale made pursuant thereto.[16]
	GR No. 173976 2009-02-27	METROPOLITAN BANK v. EUGENIO PEÑAFIEL NACHURA, J.
The object of a notice of sale is to inform the public of the nature and condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place and terms of the sale. Notices are given for the purpose of securing bidders and to prevent a sacrifice of the property.[19] The goal of the notice requirement is to achieve a "reasonably wide publicity" of the auction sale. This is why publication in a newspaper of general circulation is required. The Court has previously taken judicial notice of the "far-reaching effects" of publishing the notice of sale in a newspaper of general circulation.[20]
	GR No. 163130 2007-09-07	SAN ROQUE REALTY v. REPUBLIC NACHURA, J.
Laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[37]
	GR NO. 170215 2007-08-28	SPS. ESMERALDO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Notices are given for the purpose of securing bidders and to prevent a sacrifice of the property. If these objects are attained, immaterial errors and mistakes will not affect the sufficiency of the notice; but if mistakes or omissions occur in the notices of sale, which are calculated to deter or mislead bidders, to depreciate the value of the property, or to prevent it from bringing a fair price, such mistakes or omissions will be fatal to the validity of the notice, and also to the sale made pursuant thereto.[21]
	GR No. 144435 2007-02-06	GUILLERMINA BALUYUT v. EULOGIO POBLETE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court's ruling in Olizon v. Court of Appeals,[28] insofar as posting and publication requirements in mortgage foreclosure sales are concerned, is instructive:We take judicial notice of the fact that newspaper publications have more far-reaching effects than posting on bulletin boards in public places. There is a greater probability that an announcement or notice published in a newspaper of general circulation, which is distributed nationwide, shall have a readership of more people than that posted in a public bulletin board, no matter how strategic its location may be, which caters only to a limited few. Hence, the publication of the notice of sale in [a] newspaper of general circulation alone is more than sufficient compliance with the notice-posting requirement of the law. By such publication, a reasonably wide publicity had been effected such that those interested might attend the public sale, and the purpose of the law had been thereby subserved.
	GR No. 125838 2003-06-10	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA CARPIO, J.
Moreover, ERHC bore the burden of presenting evidence that the sheriffs failed to post the notices of sale.[20] In the absence of contrary evidence, as in this case, the presumption prevails that the sheriffs performed their official duty of posting the notices of sale. Consequently, we hold that the non-execution of the certificate of posting cannot nullify the foreclosure of the chattel and real estate mortgages in the instant case.

ARMANDO S. OLIZON v. CA