Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 166859 2011-04-12	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN BERSAMIN, J.
On November 28, 2007, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its decision,[82] decreeing as follows:
	GR No. 187917 2011-01-19	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. EDMUNDO MIRANDA AND JULIE MIRANDA NACHURA, J.
Apparently, Metrobank lost sight of our ruling in Spouses Pulido v. CA,[25] Sempio v. CA,[26] and, recently, in Philippine Savings Bank v. Spouses Dionisio Geronimo and Caridad Geronimo,[27] viz.: While it may be true that the party alleging non-compliance with the requisite publication has the burden of proof, still negative allegations need not be proved even if essential to one's cause of action or defense if they constitute a denial of the existence of a document the custody of which belongs to the other party.
	GR No. 187917 2011-01-19	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. EDMUNDO MIRANDA AND JULIE MIRANDA NACHURA, J.
The goal of the notice requirement is to achieve a "reasonably wide publicity" of the auction sale. This is why publication in a newspaper of general circulation is required. The Court has previously taken judicial notice of the "far-reaching effects" of publishing the notice of sale in a newspaper of general circulation. Thus, the publication of the notice of sale was held essential to the validity of foreclosure proceedings.[31] In this case, Metrobank failed to establish compliance with the publication requirement. The RTC and the CA cannot, therefore, be faulted for nullifying the foreclosure proceedings.