FACTS:

Petitioners filed a case in the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, seeking the annulment of the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings over their mortgaged properties. They alleged that no formal notice of intention to foreclose the mortgage was sent by respondent Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank to them. Petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment based on the mortgage contract provision that all correspondence, including notifications of any judicial or extrajudicial actions, should be sent to them at a specified address. Respondent opposed the motion, arguing that other provisions of the mortgage contract gave them the power to foreclose without personal notice. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, ruling that there were genuine and substantial issues that required the presentation of evidence during the trial. Petitioners appealed to the respondent court, which upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that personal notice was not required since respondent was appointed as their attorney-in-fact to sell the property. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari to challenge the dismissal of their appeal.

ISSUES:

1. Whether summary judgment is proper in this case.

2. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' motion for summary judgment.

RULING:

1. Summary judgment is not proper in this case.

2. The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' motion for summary judgment.

PRINCIPLES:

• Summary judgment is not appropriate if there are genuine and substantial issues that require the presentation of evidence during the trial.

• Personal notice is not required to foreclose a mortgage if the mortgagor has constituted the mortgagee as their attorney-in-fact to sell the mortgaged property.