Guillermo Cortes v. The Intermediate Appellate Court

Summary

The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of DBP's extrajudicial foreclosure of the Cortes' mortgaged property under Act No. 3135. The Court ruled that personal notice to mortgagors is not required for extrajudicial foreclosure, only posting and publication as mandated by law. The petitioners' argument that they should be allowed to redeem the property due to lack of personal notice was rejected, as proper notice was given through posting and publication. The Court also rejected petitioners' claim of ownership over an alleged house built on the property after foreclosure, finding insufficient evidence of construction and noting that even if proven, Article 448 of the Civil Code gives the option to the land owner, not the builder. The case establishes important precedents on foreclosure notice requirements and post-foreclosure improvements on mortgaged properties in Philippine jurisprudence.