8/14/24, 8:13 PM G.R. No. 194983 | Philippine National Bank v.

Bacani

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 194983. June 20, 2018.]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO BACANI, RODOLFO BACANI,

ROSALIA VDA. DE BAYAUA, JOSE BAYAUA and JOVITA VDA. DE BAYAUA, respondents.

DECISION

REYES, JR., J : p

This is a petition for review on certiorari [1] filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to
reverse and set aside the Decision [2] dated September 30, 2010 and Resolution [3] dated January 5, 2011
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 82923. In these issuances, the CA affirmed the trial court's
decision, which held that petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) fraudulently sold the subject property to
the prejudice of Antonio Bacani, Rodolfo Bacani (Rodolfo), Rosalia Vda. De Bayaua, Jose Bayaua and
Jovita Vda. De Bayaua (collectively referred to as the respondents). This resulted in the nullification of the
sale and the buyer's certificate of title over the subject property.

Factual Antecedents

Respondent Rodolfo was the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Centro East, Santiago,
Isabela, with an area of 618 square meters (subject property), covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. 114296. [4] The other respondents in this case were the occupants of the subject property. [5]

On July 16, 1980, the subject property was used to secure the Php80,000.00 loan that Rodolfo and
his wife, Nellie Bacani (collectively, the Spouses Bacani) obtained from PNB. [6] When the Spouses Bacani
failed to pay their loan, PNB extrajudicially foreclosed the subject property on September 9, 1986. It was
awarded to PNB as the highest bidder, who had a bid amount of Php148,960.74. [7] IAETDc

The Spouses Bacani failed to redeem the property. Consequently, on June 6, 1989, Rodolfo's title
was cancelled, and in its place, TCT No. T-185028 was issued in the name of PNB. [8]

On November 29, 1989, PNB issued SEL Circular No. 8-7/89, revising its policy on the disposition of
acquired assets. Subject to certain conditions, former owners or their heirs, as the case may be, were given
priority in the re-acquisition of their foreclosed assets "on negotiated basis without public bidding." [9]

In light of this PNB circular, the Spouses Bacani initiated negotiations with PNB regarding the re-
acquisition of their property. Their intention to buy back the subject property was manifested at the earliest
through a written offer on August 26, 1991. This was followed by another letter to PNB on November 11,
1991, addressed to Mr. Antonio C. Santos (Mr. Santos), then the Branch Manager of PNB Cauayan Branch.
[10]

https://cdasiaonline.com/document?type=case&id=681e8cc0&title=Philippine National Bank v. Bacani&refNo=G.R. No. 194983 1/12

8/14/24, 8:13 PM G.R. No. 194983 | Philippine National Bank v. Bacani

Initially, the Spouses Bacani's written offer to purchase the subject property was fixed at
Php150,000.00. [11] On November 25, 1991, the Spouses Bacani sent another letter, increasing the offer to
Php220,000.00. [12]

The Spouses Bacani continued to follow-up on their request to repurchase. On April 7, 1992, Mr.
Santos advised them to increase their offer because their initial proposal was low. Through a letter sent to
PNB on May 25, 1992, the Spouses Bacani accordingly offered to repurchase the subject property for
Php200,000.00 in cash and Php100,000.00 payable in installments for two years, or an aggregate amount
of Php300,000.00. They also sent letters to PNB on various dates (i.e., July 29, 1992, and December 10,
1992). [13]

PNB later informed the Spouses Bacani in its letter dated December 10, 1992 that the request for
repurchase was refused and instead, the subject property would be sold in a public auction. [14] This was
followed by another letter dated January 26, 1993, which attached the office memorandum explaining why
the Spouses Bacani's offer was refused. It stated that the reason for the rejection was the low offer from the
Spouses Bacani, which amounted to less than the fair market value of the subject property and PNB's total
claim. [15] At that time, the subject property's fair market value was appraised at Php494,000.00. [16] DcHSEa

Undeterred by this setback, the Spouses Bacani increased their offer to Php350,000.00 on June 10,
1993. They also continued to communicate with PNB, even after Mr. Santos was succeeded by a new
Branch Manager, Mr. Bartolome Pua (Mr. Pua). Their efforts, however, remained unsuccessful. [17]

On January 29, 1996, the Spouses Bacani received a notice from Mr. Pua that the PNB Special
Assets Management Department (SAMD) had begun to accept offers for the purchase of various properties,
including the subject property. They were provided with copy of the Invitation to Bid, stating that the public
bidding was scheduled on February 8, 1996, at 10:00 a.m., in the office of the PNB SAMD. [18] PNB set the
floor bid price to Php4,000,000.00. [19]

On January 30, 1996, PNB sold the subject property through a negotiated sale to Renato de Leon
(Renato), for the price of Php1,500,000.00. Pursuant to this sale, the title of PNB was cancelled, and TCT
No. 261643 was issued in the name of Renato. Renato later on filed an ejectment case against the
respondents on February 18, 1997, which was favorably granted by the Municipal Trial Court of Santiago
City. The respondents were consequently directed to vacate the subject property, and their houses were
later on demolished. [20] SCaITA

On March 19, 1997, the respondents filed a complaint for the annulment of the sale and Renato's
title over the subject property, together with a prayer for the payment of damages. The case was docketed
as Civil Case No. 35-2365 with the Regional Trial Court of (RTC) of Santiago City. [21] The respondents
alleged that PNB schemed to prevent the Spouses Bacani from buying back the subject property. They also
claimed that PNB's refusal to accept their offer, and the subsequent sale of the subject property to Renato
despite its earlier scheduled auction sale, were all badges of bad faith on the part of PNB that warrant the
annulment of Renato's title and the award of damages in their favor. [22]

PNB refuted the respondents' allegations, stating that the offer of the Spouses Bacani were way
below the fair market value of the subject property. [23] It was further alleged that as the registered owner,
PNB may dispose of the subject property in accordance with its own terms and conditions. [24]

https://cdasiaonline.com/document?type=case&id=681e8cc0&title=Philippine National Bank v. Bacani&refNo=G.R. No. 194983 2/12

8/14/24, 8:13 PM G.R. No. 194983 | Philippine National Bank v. Bacani

Ruling of the RTC

After trial, the RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, and found that PNB acted in bad faith by failing
to give preference to the Spouses Bacani's offer to purchase the subject property. In its Decision [25] dated
March 1, 2004, the RTC held:

WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby

rendered in favor of the [respondents] and against the [PNB, Mr. Santos and Renato], as
follows:

1. ORDERING the cancellation of [Renato's] TCT No. T-261643 of the Register of

Deeds of Isabela;

2. ORDERING PNB to convey in favor of [the Spouses Bacani] the land covered
by its TCT No. T-185028, upon the payment by said Spouses of the sum of Php217,646.50
representing PNB's total claim against them; and

3. ORDERING the [PNB, Mr. Santos, and Renato] to pay jointly and solidarily the
[respondents]: Php5,000.00 each as actual damages; and Php50,000.00 as attorney's fees
and cost. aTHCSE

SO ORDERED. [26]

The trial court found that PNB sold the subject property to Renato on January 30, 1996 through a
negotiated sale, despite having notified the Spouses Bacani the day before that the subject property was
included in the auction sale. This action on the part of PNB pre-empted the results of the public bidding,
which the trial court equated to fraud because the Spouses Bacani supposedly relied on PNB's
representation that the subject property would be sold in a public auction. [27] The RTC also did not
consider Renato as a purchaser in good faith because the Invitation to Bid was published, which fact should
have put him on notice regarding the supposed status of the subject property. [28]

The RTC ruled that PNB failed to observe its own policy granting priority right to the former owners
of its acquired assets. The Spouses Bacani should have been allowed to re-acquire the property upon
payment of its total loan obligation to PNB in the amount of Php217,646.50. [29]

PNB appealed to the CA and attributed several errors to the trial court. PNB disagreed that the
preference granted to former owners under SEL Circular No. 8-7/89 constitutes a legally demandable right
on the part of the Spouses Bacani, which would compel PNB to sell the subject property regardless of the
offer of the Spouses Bacani. [30] Again, PNB argued that as the registered owner of the subject property, it
has the prerogative to dispose or sell the property in the manner it sees fit. PNB, thus, asserted that the sale
to Renato was not fraudulent. [31]

Ruling of the CA

In its Decision [32] dated September 30, 2010, the CA denied PNB's appeal:
WHEREFORE, the trial court's Decision dated March 1, 2004 is affirmed.

SO ORDERED. [33] cAaDHT

https://cdasiaonline.com/document?type=case&id=681e8cc0&title=Philippine National Bank v. Bacani&refNo=G.R. No. 194983 3/12

8/14/24, 8:13 PM G.R. No. 194983 | Philippine National Bank v. Bacani

The CA affirmed the trial court's findings that the sale of the subject property to Renato was
fraudulent because the Spouses Bacani were unable to exercise their right to buy back their foreclosed
property at the scheduled public bidding. [34] The CA also noted that the Spouses Bacani's time deposit in
the amount of USD12,585.27 on October 2, 1992, which was renewed and increased to USD13,707.22 as
of October 23, 2000, was a clear manifestation of the Spouses Bacani's financial capability and earnest
desire to repurchase the subject property. [35] The CA also applied the doctrine on constructive trust as
regards Renato's acquisition of title over the subject property, in order to justify its reconveyance to the
Spouses Bacani. [36]

PNB, thereafter, moved for the reconsideration of the CA's Decision dated September 30, 2010.
Among other things, it alleged that the dollar time deposit account was opened jointly under the names of a
certain Pilarita Ruiz and Nellie Bacani. For this reason, the amount deposited in the account should not
have been considered by the CA in determining the Spouses Bacani's offer to repurchase the subject
property. [37] PNB further maintained that Renato is an innocent purchaser for value because the title over
the subject property was already registered with PNB at the time of the sale to Renato. [38]

PNB's motion for reconsideration was denied in the Resolution [39] dated January 5, 2011 of the CA,
to wit:

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. [40]

Following the denial of its motion, PNB appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. PNB claims that the decisions of the RTC and the CA
deprived it of its right to freely dispose of the subject property, which was rightfully acquired in a foreclosure
sale after the Spouses Bacani defaulted on their loan obligation. It also refutes the CA's holding that the
cancellation of Renato's title was justified under the doctrine of constructive trust, there being no fraud or
misrepresentation on the part of Renato in acquiring said title over the subject property. [41] HCaDIS

Ruling of the Court

The Court grants the petition. Both the RTC and the CA gravely erred in relying on PNB SEL Circular
No. 8-7/89 to nullify the sale of the subject property.

Upon the expiration of the period to

redeem, the Spouses Bacani do not
have an enforceable right to
repurchase the subject property.

In extrajudicial foreclosures of real estate mortgage, the debtor, his or her successors-in-interest, or
any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of said debtor, is granted a period of one (1) year within which to
redeem the property. [42] The redemption period is reckoned from the registration of the certificate of sale
with the Register of Deeds. [43] When the debtor, or the successors-in-interest as the case may be, fails to
redeem the property within the prescribed statutory period, the consolidation of ownership in favor of the
purchaser becomes a matter of right. At that point, the purchaser becomes the absolute owner of the
property, and may, as a necessary consequence, exercise all the essential attributes of ownership. [44]

https://cdasiaonline.com/document?type=case&id=681e8cc0&title=Philippine National Bank v. Bacani&refNo=G.R. No. 194983 4/12

8/14/24, 8:13 PM G.R. No. 194983 | Philippine National Bank v. Bacani

The effect of the consolidation of title over a foreclosed property was satisfactorily explained by the
Court in Spouses Marquez v. Spouses Alindog, [45] as follows:

It is thus settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute
owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year
after the registration of the sale. As such, he is entitled to the possession of the said
property and can demand it at any time following the consolidation of ownership in his
name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title. The buyer can in fact
demand possession of the land even during the redemption period except that he has to post
a bond in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended. No such bond is required
after the redemption period of the property is not redeemed. Possession of the land then
becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as confirmed owner. Upon proper application and
proof of title, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court.
[46] (Citation omitted and emphasis Ours) AHCETa

In this case, PNB's certificate of sale was registered on October 10, 1986 and one (1) year lapsed
from this date without the Spouses Bacani exercising their right to redeem the subject property. [47] Due to
the unfortunate failure of the Spouses Bacani to exercise their redemption right, the title of Rodolfo over the
subject property was cancelled and TCT No. T-185028 was issued in the name of PNB. [48] At this point,
PNB became the absolute owner of the property and Rodolfo, as well as his wife, lost all their rights and
interests over it. [49] Verily, PNB not only had the right to its possession, but also all the other rights
considered as essential attributes of ownership — including the right to dispose or alienate the subject
property. [50]

The Court notes that when the Spouses Bacani made its initial offer to repurchase the subject
property on August 26, 1991, [51] almost four (4) years passed since the redemption period expired on
October 10, 1987. Thus, by the time the parties started negotiating the Spouses Bacani's reacquisition of
the subject property, PNB was already the absolute owner. On this point, Article 428 of the Civil Code
explicitly states that:
ART. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without
other limitations than those established by law.

xxx xxx xxx (Emphases and underscoring Ours)

Clearly, PNB had full discretion as to the terms and conditions relating to the disposition of
the subject property. PNB cannot be compelled to sell the subject property to specific persons without its
consent. Neither may the courts enjoin nor nullify the alienation of the property on grounds other than those
established by law. [52] ScHADI

The Spouses Bacani, however, anchored their claim on PNB SEL Circular No. 8-7/89, which
embodied the bank's policy of giving priority to former owners in the disposition of its acquired assets. But
when the circular was issued on November 29, 1989, the redemption period has expired and the title
over the subject property was already consolidated in favor of PNB as its purchaser during the
foreclosure sale. For this reason, any offer on the part of the Spouses Bacani is merely an offer to
repurchase, and PNB was not statutorily or contractually bound to accept such offer.

https://cdasiaonline.com/document?type=case&id=681e8cc0&title=Philippine National Bank v. Bacani&refNo=G.R. No. 194983 5/12

8/14/24, 8:13 PM G.R. No. 194983 | Philippine National Bank v. Bacani

While it was similarly alleged that the Spouses Bacani started negotiating with PNB for the
reacquisition of the property as early as 1988, or before the issuance of PNB's certificate of title, [53] it
remains undisputed that they failed to redeem the property within the prescribed period for redemption.
Consequently, the Spouses Bacani were divested of their rights over the subject property. The subsequent
issuance of a final deed of sale to PNB merely confirmed the title that was earlier vested in the bank. [54]

Since it is undisputed that the Spouses Bacani failed to exercise their right of redemption within the
prescribed period, the Court cannot uphold their assertion that PNB's policy of preference should allow them
to repurchase the property unconditionally. The Court's ruling in GE Money Bank, Inc. v. Spouses Dizon [55]
is instructive on this matter:

The right to redeem of the Spouses Dizon already expired on October 18, 1994.
Thereafter, their offer should aptly be termed as a repurchase, not redemption. The
Bank is not bound by the bid price, at the very least, and has the discretion to even set
a higher price. As We explained:

The right to redeem becomes functus officio on the date of its expiry,
and its exercise after the period is not really one of redemption but a
repurchase. Distinction must be made because redemption is by force of law;
the purchaser at public auction is bound to accept redemption. Repurchase,
however, of foreclosed property, after redemption period, imposes no such
obligation. After expiry, the purchaser may or may not re-sell the property but
no law will compel him to do so. And, he is not bound by the bid price; it is
entirely within his discretion to set a higher price, for after all, the
property already belongs to him as owner. [56] (Emphases Ours) aICcHA

In any case, the issuance of PNB SEL Circular No. 8-7/89 does not automatically entitle the Spouses
Bacani to repurchase the subject property. The circular was an internal memorandum intended for the
information of bank employees and personnel. It was addressed to the heads of PNB's offices and
branches, to guide them in the disposal and alienation of the bank's acquired assets. Thus, as an internal
bank policy, the Spouses Bacani do not have a legally enforceable right to be prioritized over all
other buyers of the subject property.

The Court has recognized in Pantaleon v. American Express International, Inc. [57] that a practice or
custom is generally not a source of a legally demandable or enforceable right. Similarly, the Spouses Bacani
cannot enforce PNB's internal bank circular, absent any law prioritizing former owners of foreclosed
properties in its subsequent sale or disposition. If the Court were to rule otherwise, an absolute owner would
be unjustly deprived of the right to freely dispose or alienate the property.

Even if the Court considers the bank circular as a binding obligation on the part of PNB to prioritize
the former owners of its acquired assets, the circular provides several terms and conditions before former
owners are able to repurchase their foreclosed properties. The circular pertinently states: HSCATc

For your information and guidance, Board Resolution No. 43 of September 19, 1989
approved an amendment to the present policy on disposition of acquired assets by giving
priority to former owners or their heirs to acquire their foreclosed assets on negotiated basis
without public bidding, subject to the following conditions.

https://cdasiaonline.com/document?type=case&id=681e8cc0&title=Philippine National Bank v. Bacani&refNo=G.R. No. 194983 6/12

8/14/24, 8:13 PM G.R. No. 194983 | Philippine National Bank v. Bacani

1. Selling price of assets shall be based on total Bank's claim or fair market
value, whichever is higher.

1.a Bank's claim shall be computed at prime rate in effect on the date of
Management recommendation, including penalties, out-of-pocket
expenses and attorney's fees;

1.b The maximum market value shall be used as determined by Bank's

appraisers in case of properties valued at no more than P1 Million and for
properties valued at more than P1 Million, maximum market value as
quoted by Bank's appraisers or independent appraisers, whichever is
higher;

2. Cash sale shall be preferred;

3. In case of installment sales, the downpayment should at least be 30% and the
recommendation of the Bank must be guided by the same prudent consideration
as would govern the extension of credit accommodations, such as financial
capacity to pay, primary and secondary source of payments, etc.;

4. The property subject of repurchase must be actually occupied as permanent

residence and/or intended to be used as residence by the former owner (if owner
has been ejected by the Bank);

5. The estimated current market value of the acquired assets does not exceed
P5,000,000.00; IDTSEH

6. The property is not the subject of any court case involving third parties other than
the Bank and the former owners; and

7. The former owners or their heirs shall exercise their right to repurchase
their properties within ninety (90) days from receipt of notice from the
Bank.

All existing rules, regulations, practices and policies on the sale and disposition of
acquired assets not in conflict herein shall remain in full force and effect. [58] (Emphases
Ours)

In this case, the Spouses Bacani's initial offer on August 26, 1991 was Php150,000.00, but the
outstanding loan balance was Php170,670.56. [59] The Spouses Bacani increased their offer to
Php220,000.00, and in 1992, to Php300,000.00 (Php200,000.00 in cash and Php100,000.00 by installment
payments). But PNB's total claim was computed at Php210,708.12 as of April 30, 1991, and Php217,646.50
as of November 4, 1991. [60] The subject property's fair market value was also appraised at Php395,520.00
in 1992, and at Php494,400.00 in 1993. [61]

In view of these undisputed facts, the Spouses Bacani were clearly unable to fulfill the very first
condition of PNB SEL Circular No. 8-7/89. The offer was lower than either the total claim of PNB, or the fair
market value of the property. PNB duly communicated the rejection of their offer, including the grounds for
the rejection, in several letters sent and received by the Spouses Bacani. [62]

https://cdasiaonline.com/document?type=case&id=681e8cc0&title=Philippine National Bank v. Bacani&refNo=G.R. No. 194983 7/12

8/14/24, 8:13 PM G.R. No. 194983 | Philippine National Bank v. Bacani

In these lights, the Spouses Bacani cannot insist on repurchasing the subject property without
complying with the requirements in the bank circular that the Spouses Bacani themselves
repeatedly invoked. PNB was not obliged to accept the proposal of the Spouses Bacani simply by virtue of
their status as former owners, especially since they failed to observe the requirements under the bank
circular. PNB was therefore justified in declining these offers to repurchase.

The CA relied on the supposed time deposit account of the Spouses Bacani with PNB, which
contained the sum of USD12,585.27 as of October 2, 1992. The deposit was allegedly renewed and
increased to USD13,707.22 as of October 23, 2000. According to the CA, PNB should have considered this
deposit as a manifestation of the Spouses Bacani's willingness and ability to pay for the reacquisition of the
subject property. [63] SICDAa

However, the fact that the Spouses Bacani maintained a time deposit account with PNB does not
change the conclusion of this Court.

Bank deposits are in the nature of a simple loan or mutuum, which must be paid upon demand by
the depositor. [64] As such, the deposit of whatever amount to PNB creates a debtor-creditor relationship
between the bank and the depositor. PNB, as the recipient of the deposit, is duty-bound to pay or release
the amount deposited whenever the depositor so requires. [65]

By the very nature of the deposit, PNB could not have assumed that the Spouses Bacani's alleged
time deposit account was meant as an option money intended to secure the privilege of buying the subject
property within a given period of time, especially since there was no option contract between them.[66]
Neither may PNB consider the deposit as a down payment on the price of the subject property because
there was no perfected contract of sale.

Evidently, as far as PNB was concerned, it cannot use the money in the time deposit to satisfy the
purchase price for the subject property, without violating its obligation to return the amount upon the
demand of the depositors. In other words, the time deposit with PNB did not create a contract of sale,
or at the very least, an option contract, between PNB and the Spouses Bacani.

Furthermore, considering that the reacquisition of the subject property involves a contract, there
should be a meeting of the minds as to its terms and conditions. When the offer is not accepted by either
party, the contract is not perfected and there is no binding juridical relation between the parties. [67] The
Spouses Bacani, therefore, cannot demand to repurchase the property, in the absence of PNB's consent to
the offer. At most, the PNB circular grants a privilege to the Spouses Bacani as the former owners, to
be given priority in the disposition of the subject property. It does not confer an enforceable and
absolute right to reacquire the property, to the prejudice of PNB as the absolute owner. DHIcET

Neither does the publication of the

Invitation to Bid constitute a binding
obligation on the part of PNB to sell
the subject property to the Spouses
Bacani.

With respect to the allegation of fraud, it is settled that fraud is never presumed — it must be proven
by clear and convincing evidence. [68] In this case, the Spouses Bacani were unable to establish that PNB

https://cdasiaonline.com/document?type=case&id=681e8cc0&title=Philippine National Bank v. Bacani&refNo=G.R. No. 194983 8/12

8/14/24, 8:13 PM G.R. No. 194983 | Philippine National Bank v. Bacani

and Renato committed fraud in the disposition of the subject property. There was no showing that PNB
assured the sale of the subject property to the Spouses Bacani during the auction. As a matter of fact, the
Spouses Bacani did not even attend the scheduled auction sale to make an offer on the subject property.
[69]

The publication of the Invitation to Bid, which included the subject property, was not a binding
obligation on the part of PNB. Article 1326 of the Civil Code clearly provides that:
ART. 1326. Advertisements for bidders are simply invitations to make
proposals, and the advertiser is not bound to accept the highest or lowest bidder, unless the
contrary appears. (Emphases Ours)

Thus, the fact that the Invitation to Bid was published cannot bind PNB to any offer from any party.
PNB merely notified interested parties to submit their proposals for the purchase of the subject property,
which PNB may either accept or reject as the absolute owner thereof. In the same manner, the published
bidding schedule was not an offer from the PNB, notice and acceptance of which would compel the bank to
sell the subject property to such party.

There being no guarantee that the highest or lowest bid was entitled to purchase the property, the
Spouses Bacani cannot rely on the publication of the Invitation to Bid to support their claim of fraud. HcDSaT

Ultimately, the Spouses Bacani do not have a cause of action, especially following the consolidation
of the subject property's title in favor of PNB. At the time of the sale to Renato, PNB was the absolute owner
of the subject property. It had the right to dispose or alienate the property, notwithstanding the intention of
the Spouses Bacani to repurchase it. Accordingly, the sale to Renato was valid. The complaint for the
annulment of said sale, as well as the annulment of Renato's title over the subject property, must be
dismissed.

WHEREFORE, the present petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 30, 2010 and
Resolution dated January 5, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 82923 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The complaint for the annulment of sale and title is DISMISSED. IDaEHC

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Del Castillo, [*] Perlas-Bernabe and Caguioa, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* Designated as additional Member per Raffle dated January 31, 2011 vice Associate Justice Diosdado
M. Peralta.

1. Rollo, pp. 10-27.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-
Padilla and Danton Q. Bueser concurring; id. at 69-86.

3. Id. at 88-89.

https://cdasiaonline.com/document?type=case&id=681e8cc0&title=Philippine National Bank v. Bacani&refNo=G.R. No. 194983 9/12

8/14/24, 8:13 PM G.R. No. 194983 | Philippine National Bank v. Bacani

4. Id. at 71.

5. Id. at 91.

6. Id. at 70, 74, 113.

7. Id. at 70.

8. Id. at 113.

9. Id. at 175-176.

10. Id. at 114.

11. Id. at 71, 98, 114.

12. Id. at 99, 114.

13. Id. at 72, 114.

14. Id. at 104-105.

15. Id. at 75, 114, 118-120.

16. Id. at 75.

17. Id. at 114.

18. Id. at 115.

19. Id. at 74.

20. Id. at 115.

21. Id. at 112.

22. Id. at 93-95.

23. Id. at 107.

24. Id. at 109.

25. Id. at 112-123.

26. Id. at 123.

27. Id. at 121.

28. Id. at 121-122.

29. Id. at 122.

https://cdasiaonline.com/document?type=case&id=681e8cc0&title=Philippine National Bank v. Bacani&refNo=G.R. No. 194983 10/12

8/14/24, 8:13 PM G.R. No. 194983 | Philippine National Bank v. Bacani

30. Id. at 138-142.

31. Id. at 146-152.

32. Id. at 10-27.

33. Id. at 85.

34. Id. at 80.

35. Id. at 83.

36. Id. at 84-85.

37. Id. at 171.

38. Id. at 171-173.

39. Id. at 29-30.

40. Id. at 89.

41. Id. at 34-64.

42. Act No. 3135 (AN ACT TO REGULATE THE SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER SPECIAL POWERS
INSERTED IN OR ANNEXED TO REAL-ESTATE MORTGAGES), Section 6.

43. Spouses Estanislao, Jr. v. CA, 414 Phil. 509, 517-518 (2001).

44. Spouses Gallent v. Velasquez, 784 Phil. 44, 58 (2016).

45. 725 Phil. 237 (2014).

46. Id. at 248.

47. Spouses Estanislao, Jr. v. CA, supra note 43.

48. Rollo, p. 71.

49. Spouses Edralin v. Philippine Veterans Bank, 660 Phil. 368, 380 (2011); Cf. Medida v. CA, 284-A
Phil. 404, 409-410 (1992).

50. See Spouses Gallent v. Velasquez, supra note 44.

51. Rollo, p. 114.

52. See Tayag v. Lacson, et al., 470 Phil. 64, 91-92 (2004).

53. Rollo, p. 114.

https://cdasiaonline.com/document?type=case&id=681e8cc0&title=Philippine National Bank v. Bacani&refNo=G.R. No. 194983 11/12

8/14/24, 8:13 PM G.R. No. 194983 | Philippine National Bank v. Bacani

54. Spouses Edralin v. Philippine Veterans Bank, supra note 49, citing Calacala v. Republic of the
Philippines, 502 Phil. 681, 691 (2005).

55. 756 Phil. 502 (2015).

56. Id. at 507-508. See also Vda. De Urbano v. Government Service Insurance System, 419 Phil. 948,
961-962 (2001); Spouses Natino v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 274 Phil. 602, 610 (1991).

57. 643 Phil. 488 (2010).

58. Rollo, pp. 175-176.

59. Id. at 53.

60. Id. at 72, 114.

61. Id. at 53, 75.

62. Id. at 75.

63. Id. at 83-84.

64. The Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Rosales, et al., 724 Phil. 66, 68 (2014).

65. BPI Family Bank v. Franco, 563 Phil. 495, 507-508 (2007).

66. See Adelfa Properties, Inc. v. CA, 310 Phil. 623, 642 (1995).

67. Heirs of Fausto C. Ignacio v. Home Bankers Savings and Trust Company, et al., 702 Phil. 109, 126
(2013); CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 1318.

68. Spouses Galang v. Spouses Reyes, 692 Phil. 652, 664 (2012).

69. Rollo, pp. 148-149.

https://cdasiaonline.com/document?type=case&id=681e8cc0&title=Philippine National Bank v. Bacani&refNo=G.R. No. 194983 12/12