This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-02-18 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Sps. Guevarra insist that the repurchase price should be the purchase price at the auction sale plus interest of one percent (1%) per month and other assessment fees,[47] citing the rulings in the cases of Belisario v. Intermediate Appellate Court[48] (Belisario) and Salenillas v. CA[49] (Salenillas). On the other hand, TCLC maintains that it is entitled to its total claims under the promissory note and the mortgage contract[50] in accordance with Section 47[51] of the General Banking Law of 2000.[52] | |||||
|
2007-03-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| However, considering that private respondent is a banking institution, the determination of the redemption price is governed by Section 78 of the General Banking Act,[25] as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1828, which provides:In the event of foreclosure, whether judicially or extrajudicially, of any mortgage on real estate which is security for any loan granted before the passage of this Act or under the provisions of this Act, the mortgagor or debtor whose real property has been sold at public auction, judicially or extrajudicially, for the full or partial payment of an obligation to any bank, banking or credit institution, within the purview of this Act shall have the right, within one year after the sale of the real estate as a result of the foreclosure of the respective mortgage, to redeem the property by paying the amount fixed by the court in the order of execution, or the amount due under the mortgage deed, as the case may be, with interest thereon at the rate specified in the mortgage, and all the costs, and judicial and other expenses incurred by the bank or institution concerned by reason of the execution and sale and as a result of the custody of said property less the income received from the property. | |||||