G.R. NO.

144435 February 6, 2007

GUILLERMINA BALUYUT, Petitioner,

vs.
EULOGIO POBLETE, SALUD POBLETE and THE HON.COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Topic: Foreclosure Proceedings and Obligations under Real Estate Mortgage Contracts

Doctrine: Presumption of Regularity in Foreclosure Proceedings

Facts:
Guillermina Baluyut (petitioner) borrowed ₱850,000.00 from the spouses Eulogio and Salud
Poblete on July 20, 1981, and signed a promissory note for the same amount. The
promissory note stipulated that the loan would mature in one month. To secure the loan,
Baluyut conveyed a house and lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 137129
to the Poblete spouses through a real estate mortgage contract. Upon maturity of the loan,
Baluyut failed to pay, leading to the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgaged property,
which was subsequently sold at auction to the Poblete spouses. Baluyut did not redeem the
property within the required period, resulting in the consolidation of title in favor of the
Poblete spouses. Baluyut refused to vacate the property, leading to legal proceedings.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's dismissal of Baluyut's
complaint challenging the foreclosure proceedings and the consolidation of title in favor of
the Poblete spouses.

Ruling:
The Court denied Baluyut's petition and affirmed the decisions of the trial court and the Court
of Appeals. The Court held that Baluyut failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her
claims regarding the maturity date of the loan, the irregularities in the foreclosure
proceedings, and her entitlement to receive an Assessment Notice or Notice of Redemption.
Baluyut's arguments were raised belatedly and lacked legal basis. The Court emphasized
the presumption of regularity in foreclosure proceedings and the burden of proof on the
petitioner to rebut such presumption. Baluyut's failure to redeem the property within the
prescribed period further weakened her position. Consequently, the Court found no merit in
Baluyut's petition and upheld the lower courts' decisions.

Legal Basis and Principles:

Presumption of Regularity in Foreclosure Proceedings: Foreclosure proceedings enjoy the
presumption of regularity, and the burden of proof lies with the party contesting their validity.
Absent clear evidence to the contrary, courts uphold the regularity of such proceedings.
Requirement of Clear Evidence: In challenging foreclosure proceedings, the party contesting
must present clear and convincing evidence to support their claims of irregularity or
impropriety.
Timeliness of Arguments: Legal arguments and issues not raised during trial cannot be
introduced for the first time on appeal. Doing so would contravene principles of fairness, due
process, and judicial efficiency.

Doctrine of Incorporation: When terms of an agreement are reduced to writing, the written
contract is deemed to contain all agreed-upon terms, and extrinsic evidence cannot be
admitted to contradict it, except in cases of fraud or mistake.
Compliance with Legal Requirements: Compliance with legal requirements for foreclosure
proceedings, including notice posting and publication, is presumed, and any challenge to
such compliance must be supported by sufficient evidence.
Relevance of Applicable Laws: Legal arguments must be based on the correct interpretation
and application of relevant laws and statutes governing the subject matter at hand.
Based on these legal principles, the Court found Baluyut's arguments unsubstantiated and
upheld the decisions of the lower courts.