Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 184301 2015-03-23	GE MONEY BANK v. SPS. VICTORINO M. DIZON AND ROSALINA L. DIZON PERALTA, J.
The one-year period of redemption provided in Act No. 3135, as amended, is only directory and can be extended by agreement of the parties.[32] When the parties voluntarily agree to extend the redemption period, the concept of legal redemption is converted into conventional redemption.[33] However, two (2) requisites must be established, to wit: (a) voluntary agreement of the parties to extend the redemption period; and (b) the debtor's commitment to pay the redemption price on a fixed date.[34]
	GR No. 152236 2010-07-28	RPRP VENTURES MANAGEMENT v. TEOFILO L. GUADIZ PERALTA, J.
which allegations are a clear admission that they were unable to settle to the fullest their obligation. Foreclosure is valid where the debtors, as in this case, are in default in the payment of their obligation.[31] The essence of a contract of mortgage indebtedness is that a property has been identified or set apart from the mass of the property of the debtor-mortgagor as security for the payment of money or the fulfillment of an obligation to answer the amount of indebtedness, in case of default of payment.[32] It is a settled rule that in a real estate mortgage when the obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold in view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the obligation.[33]
	GR No. 163117 2009-12-18	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. MARIA LETICIA FERNANDEZ CARPIO, J.
Foreclosure is valid where the debtor is in default in the payment of an obligation.[23] The essence of a contract of mortgage indebtedness is that a property has been identified or set apart from the mass of the property of the debtor-mortgagor as security for the payment of money or the fulfillment of an obligation to answer the amount of indebtedness, in case of default in payment.[24] Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of the mortgage indebtedness.[25] In a real estate mortgage when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold with the view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the obligation.[26]
	GR No. 178449 2008-10-17	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. ELISA TAN AND ANTONIO TAN AND SPS. LILIAN TAN AND MARCIAL SEE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The trial court ruled that spouses Elisa and Antonio Tan are fully within their right to redeem the foreclosed property after the finality of the Decision in G.R. No. 118585. Technically, it said, the tender and offer of redemption of spouses Elisa and Antonio Tan was within the one-year period reckoned from the registration of the Certificate of Sale in the Registry of Deeds because the redemption period was "freezed" when respondents were forced to file Civil Case No. 85-33933 (Annulment and Cancellation of Extra-judicial Foreclosure Sale with Preliminary Injunction, Restraining Order and Damages) on 11 December 1984 after said tender of redemption price was refused as a result of a misunderstanding as to its amount. Respondents insisted to redeem on the basis of their PN No. BDS-3605 while Metrobank demanded that the redemption price should include the unsecured PN No. BDS-3583. The filing of Civil Case No. 85-33933 within the one-year redemption period preserved spouses Elisa and Antonio Tan's right of redemption until said case has been decided with finality. Citing State Investment House, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[21] Belisario v. Intermediate Appellate Court[22] and Hi-Yield Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[23] the Court said that the filing of the Civil Complaint has the effect of freezing the redemption period and preserves the right of the mortgagor to redeem the property foreclosed, and that the filing of the court action to enforce the correct redemption price is equivalent to a formal offer to redeem. The offer to redeem in this case made sometime in 1985 was "frozen" and remained fresh and unexpired until Civil Case No. 85-33933 was finally decided by the Supreme Court on 14 September 1995. Thereafter, the redemption period resumed to run anew.
	GR NO. 150097 2007-02-26	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ALEJANDRO CORONA, J.
The issue of whether demand was made before the foreclosure was effected is essential. If demand was made and duly received by the respondents and the latter still did not pay, then they were already in default and foreclosure was proper. However, if demand was not made, then the loans had not yet become due and demandable. This meant that respondents had not defaulted in their payments and the foreclosure by petitioner was premature. Foreclosure is valid only when the debtor is in default in the payment of his obligation.[19]