This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-02-22 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| After trial on the merits, the RTC dismissed respondent's complaint. The RTC found that while there were two mortgage contracts, the foreclosure of respondent's properties could not be set aside because to allow respondent to avoid liability based on the real estate mortgage over its properties would amount to unjust enrichment. The RTC noted, first, that the incorporators of TFRC and respondent are composed of the same persons. Second, it noted that respondent failed to act on its obligation to pay despite several demands from petitioner. Thus, the RTC ruled that foreclosure was petitioner's proper remedy, citing the case of Valmonte v. Court of Appeals,[13] which held that "[t]he only condition the law requires in extrajudicial foreclosure is that the loan is already due and demandable and there was failure on the part of the mortgagor to pay the mortgage debt." Lastly, the RTC also noted that there was no merit to respondent's claim that the mortgage it signed was void for being irregular.[14] | |||||
|
2008-09-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. It is settled that when there is a right to redeem, inadequacy of price is of no moment, for the reason that the judgment debtor always has the chance to redeem and reacquire the property. In fact, the property may be sold for less than its fair market value, precisely because the lesser the price, the easier for the owner to effect a redemption.[81] In Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc., [82] the Court ruled:[G]ross inadequacy of price does not nullify an execution sale. In an ordinary sale, for reason of equity, a transaction may be invalidated on the ground of inadequacy of price, or when such inadequacy shocks one's conscience as to justify the courts to interfere; such does not follow when the law gives the owner the right to redeem as when a sale is made at public auction, upon the theory that the lesser the price, the easier it is for the owner to effect redemption. When there is a right to redeem, inadequacy of price should not be material because the judgment debtor may re-acquire the property or else sell his right to redeem and thus recover any loss he claims to have suffered by reason of the price obtained at the execution sale. Thus, respondent stood to gain rather than be harmed by the low sale value of the auctioned properties because it possesses the right of redemption. x x x. | |||||
|
2004-07-13 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Succinct and unmistakable is the consistent pronouncement that this Court is not a trier of facts. And well entrenched is the doctrine that pure questions of fact may not be the proper subject of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, as this mode of appeal is generally confined to questions of law.[8] Corollarily, a question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts.[9] | |||||