Cited Laws
Accordingly, a notice of extrajudicial foreclosure sale under Act 3135, [4] as amended, was made and copies thereof sent to L & R and petitioner Godfrey Bohanan by the Deputy Sheriff acting for the Sheriff of Manila. The notice was published in the 20 and 27 August and 3 September 1984 issues of The Metropolitan Mail per affidavit of its editor-publisher. At the scheduled sale on 14 September 1984 L & R became the successful bidder with its bid of P327,615.54 and was issued a certificate of sale. However, upon failure of petitioner to redeem his property within the one-year redemption period provided by law, L & R executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership leading to the issuance on 1 October 1985 of TCT Nos. 167051 and 167052 in its name and the cancellation of petitioners TCT Nos. 92334 and 92335. On 17 February 1987 L & Rs titles were in turn cancelled to give way to TCT Nos. 172718 and 172719 in the name of Rosario Guanzon, married to Dionisio Cabrera Jr., who bought the property from L & R for P200,000.00. On 23 February 1987 petitioner filed a complaint against L & R Corporation and its vendees, the spouses Cabrera Jr., for recovery of property with preliminary injunction [5] contending that the sale between the Cabreras on one hand and L & R on the other, was undertaken in fraud of a contractual commitment to him. Subsequently the complaint was amended to be one for annulment of sale with injunction and damages, with petitioner asking that the sheriffs foreclosure sale held on 14 September 1984 be declared void and that the foreclosed properties be returned to him upon his payment of the mortgage obligation. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner declaring null and void the Sheriffs foreclosure sale without prejudice to the foreclosure of the mortgage on said properties strictly in accordance with law; annulling the Deed of Sale of 13 February 1987 executed by private respondent L & R in favor) of Rosario Guanzon as well as the TCTs issued pursuant thereto; and, ordering payment of damages in favor of petitioner. On 19 April 1993 the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. [6] The appellate court concluded that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the foreclosure sale and that the spouses Cabrera could not be considered buyers in bad faith since their act of buying the properties direct from L & R, instead of through petitioner, did not automatically make them so. Hence, this recourse by Godfrey Bohanan. Petitioner contends that respondent Court of Appeals erred in concluding that there was a valid foreclosure sale despite the fact that (a) he was not notified of the sale; (b) the deputy sheriff who conducted the sale did not submit a certificate of posting to prove the alleged posting in three (3) public places required under Act No. 3135; and, (c) the Post Office and Finance buildings where the notice of sale was allegedly posted (in addition to the City Hall) were not public places. The petition