Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RUSTICO DE LOS REYES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 180559 2016-01-20	ANECITA GREGORIO v. MARIA CRISOLOGO VDA. DE CULIG JARDELEZA, J.
The case of Vda. de Panaligan v. Court of Appeals[35] further clarified that tender of payment of the repurchase price is not among the requisites, and thus unnecessary for redemption under the Public Land Act. Citing Philippine National Bank v. De los Reyes,[36] we ruled that it is not even necessary for the preservation of the right of redemption to make an offer to redeem or tender of payment of purchase price within five years. The filing of an action to redeem within that period is equivalent to a formal offer to redeem, and that there is even no need for consignation of the redemption price.[37] Thus, even in the case before us, it is immaterial that the repurchase price was not deposited with the Clerk of Court.
	GR No. 171868 2011-07-27	SPS. FRANCISCO D. YAP v. SPS. ZOSIMO DY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We cannot subscribe to the Yaps' argument on the indivisibility of the mortgage. As held in the case of Philippine National Bank v. De los Reyes,[44] the doctrine of indivisibility of mortgage does not apply once the mortgage is extinguished by a complete foreclosure thereof as in the instant case. The Court held: The parties were accordingly embroiled in a hermeneutic disparity on their aforesaid contending positions. Yet, the rule on the indivisibility of mortgage finds no application to the case at bar. The particular provision of the Civil Code referred to provides:
	GR No. 162218 2010-02-25	METROPOLITAN BANK v. EDGARDO D. VIRAY CARPIO, J.
It must be emphasized that the main purpose in the grant of a free patent or homestead is to preserve and keep in the family of the homesteader that portion of public land which the State has given to him so he may have a place to live with his family and become a happy citizen and a useful member of the society.[18] In Jocson v. Soriano,[19] we held that the conservation of a family home is the purpose of homestead laws. The policy of the state is to foster families as the foundation of society, and thus promote general welfare. The sentiment of patriotism and independence, the spirit of free citizenship, the feeling of interest in public affairs, are cultivated and fostered more readily when the citizen lives permanently in his own home, with a sense of its protection and durability.
	GR No. 149221 2009-04-07	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MARCELINO BANATAO BRION, J.
Both the defendants-respondents and the bank are to be faulted for the invalidity of the mortgages. We cannot, however, apply the doctrine of pari delicto in accordance with the ruling that the doctrine does not apply when the contract is prohibited by law.[23] A saving factor for the bank under the situation is that a mortgage is merely an accessory agreement and does not affect the principal contract of loan. The mortgages, while void, can still be considered as instruments evidencing the indebtedness of defendants-respondents to the PNB in a proper case for the collection of the defendants-respondents' loans.
	GR NO. 147902 2006-03-17	SPS. VICENTE YU AND DEMETRIA LEE-YU v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[26] Philippine National Bank v. De los Reyes, G.R. Nos. 46898-99, November 28, 1989, 179 SCRA 619, 626; Philippine National Bank v. Amores, G.R. No. L-54551, November 9, 1987, 155 SCRA 445, 451; Gonzales v. Government Service Insurance System, 194 Phil. 465, 475 (1981).