This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-04-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's invocation of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty on the part of Sheriff Castillo is misplaced. While posting the notice of sale is part of a sheriff's official functions,[23] the actual publication of the notice of sale cannot be considered as such, since this concerns the publisher's business. Simply put, the sheriff is incompetent to prove that the notice of sale was actually published in a newspaper of general circulation. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| This Court ruled in Cristobal v. Court of Appeals[13] that a certificate of posting is not required, much less considered indispensable for the validity of an extrajudicial foreclosure sale of real property under Act No. 3135. Cristobal merely reiterated the doctrine laid down in Bohanan v. Court of Appeals.[14] In the present case, the foreclosing sheriffs failed to execute the certificate of posting of the auction sale notices. However, this fact alone does not prove that the sheriffs failed to post the required notices. As held in Bohanan, "the fact alone that there is no certificate of posting attached to the sheriff's records is not sufficient to prove the lack of posting."[15] | |||||