Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RURAL BANK OF DAVAO CITY v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 195540 2013-03-13	GOLDENWAY MERCHANDISING CORPORATION v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioner then argues that applying Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791 to the present case would be a substantial impairment of its vested right of redemption under the real estate mortgage contract. Such impairment would be violative of the constitutional proscription against impairment of obligations of contract, a patent derogation of petitioner's vested right and clearly changes the intention of the contracting parties. Moreover, citing this Court's ruling in Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[12] where it was held that "Section 119 prevails over statutes which provide for a shorter period of redemption in extrajudicial foreclosure sales", and in Sulit v. Court of Appeals,[13] petitioner stresses that it has always been the policy of this Court to aid rather than defeat the mortgagor's right to redeem his property.
	GR No. 152413 2009-02-13	BARCELIZA P. CAPISTRANO v. DARRYL LIMCUANDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is true that Section 118[15] of the Public Land Act pertains to the prohibition of the sale or encumbrance of a land acquired through free patent and homestead provision within a period of five years from the date of the issuance of the patent or grant. On the other hand, Section 119[16] of the said law subjects said land's alienation, impliedly after the expiration of the prohibitive period, upon a right of repurchase by the homesteader, his widow, or heirs, within a period of five years from the date of its conveyance. Indeed, these provisions complement the intent and purpose of the law "to preserve and keep in the family of the homesteader that portion of public land which the State had gratuitously given to him."[17]
	GR No. 172248 2008-09-17	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ASOK CORONA, J.
This is far from a novel issue. It was already resolved in Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. v. CA:[26]
	GR No. 127827 2003-03-05	LOPEZ v. CA PUNO, J.
We do not agree. Homestead settlement is one of the modes by which public lands suitable for agricultural purposes are disposed of.[17] Its object is to provide a home for each citizen of the state, where his family may shelter and live beyond the reach of financial misfortune, and to inculcate in individuals those feelings of independence which are essential to the maintenance of free institutions.[18]