"x x x.
The questioned foreclosure sale is valid, considering absence of any ground to annul the same.
Our resolve to deny this petition emanates as well to the correctness of the trial court's ruling as to the merit of the case.
We agree with the trial court and the CA as to its ruling on the validity of the subject foreclosure sale. To justify its ruling, the CA cited our decision in United Coconut Planters Bank v. Beluso,[26] where we enumerated the grounds for the proper annulment of the foreclosure sale, to wit: “(1) that there was fraud, collusion, accident, mutual mistake, breach of trust or misconduct by the purchaser; (2) that the sale had not been fairly and regularly conducted; or (3) that the price was inadequate and the inadequacy was so great as to shock the conscience of the court.”[27]
The CA correctly pointed out that the present case does not fall in any of the grounds cited above. PNB did not appear to bid under fraud, collusion, accident, mutual mistake, breach of trust or misconduct; the sale was also conducted fairly and regularly considering that PNB did not even institute any action to correct its bid; nor did it file any counterclaim.[28] The price was also not shockingly inadequate, as there was even an excess. Thus, in sum, no ground may be cited to declare the subject foreclosure sale null and void.
Can we then say that the foreclosure sale is invalid because PNB committed a mistake in its bid?
We rule in the negative. The CA wisely ratiocinated that PNB cannot
be allowed to change its bid after the foreclosure sale by simply submitting a letter because tolerating it is to set a dangerous precedent where unscrupulous bidders would offer an astronomical amount, only to withdraw it after the foreclosure sale has been completed.[29] Such a scenario will defeat the very purpose of bidding. The CA clearly explained its ruling, to wit:
Besides, PNB cannot be allowed to change its bid after the foreclosure sale by the simple expedient of submitting a letter months after the sale. To grant PNB's claim could set a dangerous precedent where unscrupulous bidders would offer astronomical amounts to overcome or discourage competition and upon winning, ask that their bid be changed to a lower amount because of mistake. This is definitely repugnant to fair play. Moreover, as observed by the trial court, PNB instituted no action to correct its bid. It did not even file a counterclaim. Thus, it appears that PNB really intended to bid sixteen million five hundred thirty four thousand eight hundred three pesos and twenty nine centavos (Php16,534,803.29) for the Valencia City
Finally, there is no need to discuss the last issue that the petitioner raised because of our findings that the appeal was not perfected. The non-perfection of the appeal therefore closes any possibility of reviewing the December 19, 2005 Resolution of the trial court, since the same has become final and executory.
x x x."
