BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. B. A. GREEN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

In support of his appeal the appellant assigns the following
alleged errors as committed by the trial court in its aforesaid order, to
wit:

“1. The lower court erred in confirming the sale without giving
defendant an opportunity to be heard on his objection to the motion seeking
confirmation of the sale.

“2. The lower court erred in confirming the sale
notwithstanding the fact that the price thereof was grossly inadequate.”

On April 25, 1924, the Court of First Instance of Manila
rendered judgment in the present case, sentencing Benjamin A. Green to pay the
plaintiff the sum of P57,900 minus P62.24, with the agreed interest at the rate
of 12 per cent per annum from August 9, 1921, plus 10 per cent on the principal
as attorney’s fees and court costs.

Said judgment having become final, on June 4, 1927 the said
court issued a writ of execution, by virtue of which the sheriff of the City of
Manila, after having given notice of the sale by publication, on October 9, 1927,
sold the property at public auction to the herein plaintiff-appellee, which was
the only bidder for the sum of P25,000.

On November 15, 1927, said plaintiff moved for the confirmation
of the said sale.

Counsel for the defendant having been notified of said motion,
and the date of the hearing thereof, they filed the following opposition:

“Comes now the defendant, by his undersigned attorneys, and
opposes the confirmation of the sale of the mortgaged property to the Bank of
the Philippine Islands for the price of P25,000 upon the ground that said price
is grossly inadequate and unconscionably low.

“The property sold at auction is situated on Azcarraga Street,
in the City of Manila, and contains an area of 2,035 square meters. It together
with other properties were mortgaged to the Bank of the Philippine Islands to
secure the payment of P50,000. Upon this particular parcel also exists a second
mortgage in favor of Mr. S. W. O’Brien to guaranty an indebtedness amounting to
more than P35,000.

“Considering the location and area of the real property in
question, it is easily worth P60,000, and to sell it for P25,000 even at a
public auction sale is unjust and unconscionable.

“Wherefore, the defendant prays the court to disapprove the
said sheriff’s sale.

Before the opponent had an opportunity to present his evidence
in support of his opposition, on December 21, 1927 his attorneys received from
the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Manila the following notification:

“You are hereby advised that on December 16, 1927, an order was
issued in the above-entitled case, confirming the sale at public auction of the
property of the defendant B. A. Green, which was the subject matter of the
present action for the foreclosure of the mortgage, carried out by the sheriff
of the City of Manila on October 9, 1927.”

Because the reasons adduced to support the two assignments of
error are so closely related, we shall discuss them together.

The only ground alleged in the opposition to the confirmation
of the sale filed by the defendant, is that the price of P25,000 for which the
land in question was sold is inadequate and beyond all reason, said property
being easily worth P60,000. It is not alleged in said opposition that there were
any irregularities at the sale which could annul it.

Even if it were true that the land in question is worth
P60,000, the fact that it was sold for only P25,000, no higher price having been
offered than that given by the plaintiff, is not in itself enough to annul the
sale, which was carried out with strict observance of the procedure prescribed
by the law, and without any irregularity to vitiate it. Moreover, it has not
been alleged in the opposition that in case of a resale a greater price than
P25,000 could be obtained.

In the appeal taken by the said defendant from an order of the
said Court of First Instance, confirming the sale of the said property made by
the sheriff of Manila to the herein plaintiff for the sum of P10,000, assigning
as one of the grounds of the opposition the inadequacy of the price, this court
found no merit in such a ground in view of the doctrines laid down in the cases
of Warner, Barnes & Co. vs. Jaucian and Jaucian (13 Phil., 4); Warner,
Barnes & Co. vs. Santos (14 Phil., 446); and National Bank vs. Gonzalez (45
Phil., 693).^[1] If in that case the inadequacy of the price of P10,000 was not
considered sufficient to annul the order confirming the sale, which was annulled
for another reason, much less reason can it be considered in the present appeal
that the price of P25,000, is inadequate to annul the order confirming the sale
in question.

For the foregoing, we are of the opinion and so hold, that
inasmuch as the opposition to the confirmation of the sale made by the sheriff
of the City of Manila pursuant to the execution only alleged as a ground that
the price of P25,000 for which the mortgaged property was sold was absolutely
inadequate and unreasonable, and whereas it has heretofore been held by this
court that the price of P10,000 for which the same property was sold at the
first auction, notwithstanding that it was inadequate, was not sufficient in
itself alone to annul the order confirming said sale; therefore, the fact that
the opponent was not given an opportunity to present evidence in support of the
allegations of his opposition with evidence does not constitute a prejudicial
error which would nullify the order confirming the sale made by the sheriff,
which is the subject matter of the present appeal.

By virtue whereof, the order appealed from is affirmed, with
costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand,
Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.