Venzon V
Venzon V
Venzon V
FACTS:
1. P filed a Petition to nullify foreclosure proceedings and Tax Declaration issued in the
name of respondent Rural Bank of Buenavista (Agusan del Norte), Inc raffled to RTC
Butuan
2. Petitioner alleged that in 1983 she and her late spouse, George F. Venzon, Sr.,
obtained a P5,000.00 loan from respondent against a mortgage on their house and
lot in Libertad, Butuan City
3. That she was able to pay P2,300.00, thus leaving an outstanding balance of only
P2,370.00; that sometime in March 1987, she offered to pay the said balance in full,
but the latter refused to accept payment, and instead shoved petitioner away from
the bank premises; that in March 1987, respondent foreclosed on the mortgage, and
the property was sold at auction for P6,472.76 to respondent, being the highest
bidder; that the foreclosure proceedings are null and void for lack of notice and
publication of the sale, lack of sheriffs final deed of sale and notice of redemption
period; and that she paid respondent P6,000.00 on October 9, 1995, as evidenced by
respondents Official Receipt No. 410848 issued on October 9, 1995.
4. ANSWER W/ COUNTERCLAIM: respondent claimed that petitioner did not make any
payment on the loan; that petitioner never went to the bank in March 1987 to settle
her obligations in full; that petitioner was not shoved and driven away from its
premises; that the foreclosure proceedings were regularly done and all requirements
were complied with; that a certificate of sale was issued by the sheriff and duly
recorded in the Registry of Deeds; that petitioners claim that she paid P6,000.00 on
October 9, 1995 is utterly false; that petitioners cause of action has long prescribed
as the case was filed only in 2005 or 18 years after the foreclosure sale; and that
petitioner is guilty of laches. Respondent interposed its counterclaim for damages
and attorneys fees as well.
5. REPLY: petitioner insisted that the foreclosure proceedings were irregular and that
prescription and laches do not apply as the foreclosure proceedings are null and void
to begin with.
6. RTC: dismissed the complaint; under the Rural Banks Act, the foreclosure of
mortgages covering loans granted by rural banks and executions of judgments
thereon involving real properties levied upon by a sheriff shall be exempt from
publication where the total amount of the loan, including interests due and unpaid,
does not exceed P10,000.00
7. CA: dismissed the petition; petitioners remedy should have been an appeal under
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court since the July 13, 2006 Resolution is a final order of
dismissal