This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-01-14 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it bears emphasis that foreclosure proceedings have in their favor the presumption of regularity and the party who seeks to challenge the proceedings has the burden of evidence to rebut the same.[15] In this case, respondent failed to prove that Prudential Bank has not complied with the notice requirement of the law. | |||||
|
2014-11-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In reversing itself, the CA took respondent's side without recognizing the strict rules on tax delinquency sales. It also erred in relying on Bank of the Philippines Islands v. Evangeline L. Puzon[30] for the Court finds it inapplicable with the issue at hand. Although the Court has applied the presumption of regularity in that case, there were other pieces of evidence which showed compliance with the requirements of a valid foreclosure sale. In ruling that there was indeed compliance, the Court said as follows:Besides, even if the notices of sale were not posted in public places, this does render the foreclosure sale invalid. As held in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Aguirre, the failure to post a notice is not a ground for invalidating the sale as long as the notice is duly published in a newspaper of general circulation. Thus, publication of the notice of sale is sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement on notice-posting. | |||||