G.R. NO. 133079 - SPS. MAXIMO LANDRITO, JR. AND PACITA EDGALANI, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; SPS. BENJAMIN SAN DIEGO AND CARMENCITA SAN DIEGO; THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF AND CLERK OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY; AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, MAKATI CITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme

Ruling

accordingly dismissed petitioners' complaint, saying that the latter's cause of action, if any, is already barred by laches on account of their failure or neglect for an unreasonable length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. Further, the trial court ruled that petitioners' inaction constituted a waiver on their part. Therefrom, petitioners went on appeal to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 48896. As stated at the outset hereof, the appellate court, in its decision of 12 December 1997, dismissed petitioners' appeal and affirmed in toto the trial court's order of dismissal. With their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the same court in its resolution of 10 March 1998, [3] petitioners are now with us via the present recourse, faulting the Court of Appeals, as follows: The Court of Appeals gravely erred in avoiding to resolve in the assailed Decision and in the questioned Resolution the basic issue as to whether or not the extra-judicial foreclosure and public auction sale of the subject parcel of land are valid and lawful when the amount stated in letter-request or the petition for extra-judicial foreclosure and in the notice of sheriff sale doubled the amount stipulated in the Amendment of Real Estate Mortgage; The Court of Appeals has similarly committed serious error in considering that the complaint of the petitioner is a complaint for redemption when in the caption; in the body; and in the prayer of the complaint, petitioner spouses have sought the nullity as void ab initio the extra-judicial foreclosure and auction sale of the subject property; The respondent Appellate Court likewise incredulously erred to have resolved the admissibility and probative value of the statement of account attached as Annex "E" of the complaint when it was not yet presented in evidence; because the stage of the case at the time the assailed dismissal order was issued, was yet in the period of pleadings; The Court of Appeals has grievously erred in affirming the assailed dismissal order by declaring petitioner spouses to have been guilty of laches in failing to redeem during the legal period of redemption the foreclosed parcel of land; when the cause of the failure to redeem was the illegal increase by 100% of the original obligation, stated in the Amendment of Real Estate Mortgage and bloating of the redemption price from Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) to Three Million Four Hundred Ninety One Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Five & 98/100 Pesos (P3,491,225.98). We DENY. The records indubitably show that at the time of the foreclosure sale on 11 August 1993, petitioners were already in default in their loan obligation to respondent Carmencita San Diego. Much earlier, or on 27 April 1993, a final notice of demand for payment had been sent to them, despite which they still failed to pay. Hence, respondent Carmencita San Diego's resort to extrajudicial foreclosure, provided no less in the pa