This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-11-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Litex had neither absolute ownership, free disposal nor the authority to freely dispose of the articles. Litex could not have subjected them to a chattel mortgage. Their inclusion in the mortgage was void[7] and had no legal effect.[8] There being no valid mortgage, there could also be no valid foreclosure or valid auction sale.[9] Thus, DBP could not be considered either as a mortgagee or as a purchaser in good faith.[10] | |||||