Scribd
Upload
174 views1 page

PNB vs. Gonzales

The Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a case to foreclose on two mortgages totaling P30,000 on Manuel Gonzalez's property. The court ordered Gonzalez to pay within 3 months or his property would be sold. At auction, the property sold for P45,940 but Gonzalez argued this was too high given the mortgages were only P15,000 each. The court then set aside the sale for inadequacy of price. However, the Supreme Court found that inadequacy of price alone is not enough to set aside a judicial sale once confirmed. There was no evidence of fraud or misconduct, so the original sale confirmation was reinstated.

Uploaded by

Maggi Bonoan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
174 views1 page

PNB vs. Gonzales

The Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a case to foreclose on two mortgages totaling P30,000 on Manuel Gonzalez's property. The court ordered Gonzalez to pay within 3 months or his property would be sold. At auction, the property sold for P45,940 but Gonzalez argued this was too high given the mortgages were only P15,000 each. The court then set aside the sale for inadequacy of price. However, the Supreme Court found that inadequacy of price alone is not enough to set aside a judicial sale once confirmed. There was no evidence of fraud or misconduct, so the original sale confirmation was reinstated.

Uploaded by

Maggi Bonoan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PNB vs.

Gonzales
G.R. No. 21026; February 13, 1924

Facts:
On November 23, 1921, the Philippine National Bank commenced a suit against Manuel
Ernesto Gonzalez to foreclose a real mortgage made to secure a promissory note for
P15,000. On March 17, 1922, the plaintiff bank filed an amended complaint against the
same defendant, in which the original was reproduced, to foreclose a second mortgage
for P15,000 upon the same land described in the original complaint.

On August 28, 1922, the court rendered judgment in favor of the bank and against the
defendant, requiring him within three months from that date to pay the plaintiff the amount
of the mortgages in question, along with the interest and costs, and that in default thereof,
execution should be issued for the sale of the property to satisfy the judgment.

On January 11, 1923, an execution was issued for the sale of the real property described
in the mortgages to satisfy the amount of the judgment. On April 16, 1923, the court held
that all of the necessary requisites for the notice of sale had been duly complied with but
that it appeared that the value of the land, which was sold to the appellant, was P45,940.
This was questioned by the appellant as the value of the mortgage on the land was only
P15,000. Thus, the court set aside the confirmation of the sale and ordered a resale due
to the sole reason that there was inadequacy in the price of the land.

Issue: Whether or not the court commit an error in confirming the judicial sale and
ordering the resale of the land in question.

Held:
Yes. It is by no means a matter of discretion with the court to rescind a sale which it has
once confirmed, nor is the sale to be rescinded for mere inadequacy of price, or for an
increase of price alone, irregularity, and the like. Some special ground must be laid such
as fraud and collusion, accident, mutual mistake, breach of trust, or misconduct upon the
part of the purchaser, or other party connected with the sale, which has worked injustice
to the party complaining and was unknown to him at the time the sale was confirmed.

In the instant case, there is no claim or pretense that there was any fraud or collusion, or
that in any way Gonzalez was misled or deceived. The bank was personally represented
at the sale, and there is no showing whatever that, if the property was resold, it would sell
for a centavo, more than the P15,000.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed. The sale will stand affirmed as of the date of
the original confirmation by the trial court, with costs in favor of the appellant.

You might also like