G.R. No. 128053 - SPOUSES PRUDENCIO ROBLES AND SUSANA DE ROBLES, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND LAGUNA DEVELOPMENT BANK AND SPOUSES NILO DE ROBLES AND ZENAIDA DE ROBLES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly rejected petitioners offer. This prompted petitioners to file the aforesaid case with the trial court on January 24, 1991. Respondent spouses prevailed in the case, with the trial court rendering its decision, declaring the foreclosure sale proper and legal and respondent spouses the lawful owners of the subject property. Petitioners challenge of the decision of the Court of Appeals rests mainly on their claim that the judicial foreclosure of the mortgage on the subject property is void ab initio due to the alleged attendant fraud and lack of the requisite notice and publication. They also beseech the Court to liberally interpret the rules on redemption in their favor and allow them to retake the subject property on equitable considerations. The Petition is devoid of merit. We affirm the validity of the foreclosure sale in favor of respondent bank. The Sheriffs Certificate of Sale belies petitioners claim that the prescribed notice and publication was not complied with. Said Certificate attests to the fact that the required twenty (20)-day written notice of the time, place and purpose of the sale was posted in three (3) conspicuous public places at Lumban, Laguna where the property is situated and in three (3) other public places in Sta. Cruz, Laguna where the auction sale was to be held, as required by law. [3] In the same Certificate, the Sheriff also declared that a copy of the notice was sent to the mortgagors by registered mail. The notice of sale was published once a week within a period of twenty (20) days in a local publication entitled Bayanihan. [4] The statements of the Sheriff are entitled to belief unless rebutted by evidence proving otherwise. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty applies in this case in favor of the Sheriff. [5] Since petitioners have not rebutted such valid presumption, we have no reason to believe that the Sheriff was remiss in his duties. Petitioners now take refuge in cases decided by this Court which stress the liberal construction of redemption laws in favor of the redemptioner. Doronila v. Vasquez [6] allowed redemption in certain cases even after the lapse of the one-year period in order to promote justice and avoid injustice. In Tolentino v. Court of Appeals, [7] the policy of the law to aid rather than defeat the right of redemption was expressed, stressing that where no injury would ensue, liberal construction of redemption laws is pursued and the exercise of the right to redemption is permitted to better serve the ends of justice. In De los Reyes v. Intermediate Appellate Court, [8] the rule was liberally interpreted in favor of the original owner of the property to give him another opportunity, should his fortunes improve, to recover his property. Confronted with this recital, will it be unjust not to allow the petitioners in this case to redeem the subject property? Given the established facts, we find that it is not so. The cases cited by petitioners are not appli