This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-06-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| United Overseas Bank, on the other hand, alleged that JOS Managing Builders is the owner of several parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. N-146444, N-146445 and N-143601. On April 3, 1997, JOS Managing Builders executed in favor of United Overseas Bank a Real Estate Mortgage[3] over the said parcels of land and the improvements existing or to be erected thereon to secure the Two Hundred Million Peso (PhP200,000,000.00)[4] loan it acquired from the bank. The subject condominium building project Aurora Milestone Tower, which is situated in the said parcels of land, are part of the properties mortgaged to United Overseas Bank. JOS Managing Builders defaulted in the payment of its loan obligations to United Overseas Bank. Hence, United Overseas Bank foreclosed the mortgage constituted over properties of JOS Managing Builders and the subject properties were sold by public auction on March 22, 1999 wherein United Overseas Bank was declared as the highest bidder. Subsequently, a certificate of sale was issued in favor of United Overseas Bank corresponding to the foreclosed properties, which was registered with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City on April 27, 1999. | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In so ruling, PBComm is not thereby made to bear the consequences of the combined errors and mistakes of the other parties. As mentioned, PD No. 957 is a social justice measure designed to protect innocent lot buyers:[26] | |||||
|
2007-09-14 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In Philippine National Bank v. Office of the President,[17] involving a defaulting mortgagor-subdivision developer, a mortgagee-bank and a lot buyer, the Court expounded on the rationale behind PD 957, as a tool to protect subdivision lot and/or condominium unit buyers against developers and mortgaging banks, in the following wise:xxx [T]he unmistakable intent of the law [is] to protect innocent lot buyers from scheming subdivision developers. As between these small lot buyers and the gigantic financial institutions which the developers deal with, it is obvious that the law as an instrument of social justice must favor the weak. Indeed, the petitioner bank had at its disposal vast resources with which it could adequately protect its loan activities, and therefore is presumed to have conducted the usual "due diligence" checking and ascertaining … the actual status, condition, utilization and occupancy of the property offered as collateral. xxx On the other hand, private respondents obviously were powerless to discover the attempt of the land developer to hypothecate the property being sold to them. It was precisely in order to deal with this kind of situation that P.D. 957 was enacted, its very essence and intendment being to provide a protective mantle over helpless citizens who may fall prey to the razzmatazz of what P.D. 957 termed "unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers." | |||||
|
2006-10-09 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| The Court is bound to effectuate the lawmakers' intent, which is the controlling factor in interpreting a statute.[29] Significantly, this Court has held that the soul of the law is intent: "The intent of a statute is the law. If a statute is valid it is to have effect according to the purpose and intent of the lawmaker. The intent is the vital part, the essence of the law, and the primary rule of construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent. The intention of the legislature in enacting a law is the law itself, and must be enforced when ascertained, although it may not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute. Courts will not follow the letter of a statute when it leads away from the true intent and purpose of the legislature and to conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. Intent is the spirit which gives life to a legislative enactment. In construing statutes the proper course is to start out and follow the true intent of the legislature and to adopt that sense which harmonizes best with the context and promotes in the fullest manner the apparent policy and objects of the legislature."[30] While the Court recognizes the general rule that the grant of tax exemptions is strictly construed against the taxpayer and in favor of the taxing power,[31] Section 13 of the franchise of respondent leaves no room for interpretation. Its franchise exempts it from paying any tax other than the option it chooses: either the "basic corporate income tax" or the two percent gross revenue tax. | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In an Order dated November 13, 2003, the ERC directed MERALCO to file its comment on NASECORE's Motion for Production of Documents.[8] | |||||