Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED in toto with costs against plaintiffs-appellants. [9] A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by herein petitioners dated 26 August 1999. They averred that the Olongapo News, the newspaper where the notice of auction sale was published, was not a newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Bataan, [10] and that the notices for the foreclosure of the subject property were not properly posted.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED in toto with costs against plaintiffs-appellants. [9] A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by herein petitioners dated 26 August 1999. They averred that the Olongapo News, the newspaper where the notice of auction sale was published, was not a newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Bataan, [10] and that the notices for the foreclosure of the subject property were not properly posted. [11] In a Resolution dated 15 June 2000, [12] the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration on the ground that the matters embodied therein had already been passed upon and resolved in its Decision. Still not satisfied, the petitioners filed the instant petition before the Court, under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure. On 18 October 2000, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, a portion of which reads: NOW, THEREFORE , you (respondents), your officers, agents, representatives, and/or persons acting upon your orders or, in your place or stead, are hereby ENJOINED from implementing the decision and resolution dated July 30, 1999 and June 15, 2000, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44246 entitled Zosimo Perez, et al. vs. Democrito Perez, et al. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS The petitioners assigned as errors the following: I THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE GROSSLY CONTRARY TO THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ON RECORD. II THERE WAS NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS ON POSTINGS. III THERE WAS NO PUBLICATION IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION WHERE THE REAL PROPERTY IS SITUATED. [13] THE ISSUE Based on the foregoing assignment of errors, the lone issue to be resolved is whether or not the essential requirements for the validity of the sheriffs auction sale under Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, governing the extra-judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage, have been observed in the instant case. THE COURTS RULING As to the first assignment of error, petitioners claim that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are grossly contrary to the undisputed facts on record. Through the ages, we have persistently stressed that this Court is not a trier of facts. [14] The factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on us especially when in complete accord with the findings of the trial court. [15] This rule, however, is not absolute, as it admits of certain exceptions, to wit: (a) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (c) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (d) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals was based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the factual findings are conflicting; (f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlo