This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-12-07 |
TOSINO v. SPS. ANDRES T. ROSARIO AND LENA DUQUE-ROSARIO AND BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is true that the rule on redemption is liberally construed in favor of the original owner of the property. The policy of the law is to aid rather than to defeat him in the exercise of his right of redemption. [93] However, the liberal interpretation of the rule on redemption is inapplicable herein as neither Duque-Rosario nor Dr. Rosario had made any attempt to redeem Lot No. 5-F-8-C-2-B-2-A. Duque-Rosario could only rely on the efforts of the Torbela siblings at redemption, which were unsuccessful. While the Torbela siblings made several offers to redeem Lot No. 356-A, as well as the two other properties mortgaged by Dr. Rosario, they did not make any valid tender of the redemption price to effect a valid redemption. The general rule in redemption is that it is not sufficient that a person offering to redeem manifests his desire to do so. The statement of intention must be accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of payment. The redemption price should either be fully offered in legal tender or else validly consigned in court. Only by such means can the auction winner be assured that the offer to redeem is being made in good faith. [94] In case of disagreement over the redemption price, the redemptioner may preserve his right of redemption through judicial action, which in every case, must be filed within the one-year period of redemption. The filing of the court action to enforce redemption, being equivalent to a formal offer to redeem, would have the effect of preserving his redemptive rights and "freezing" the expiration of the one-year period. [95] But no such action was instituted by the Torbela siblings or either of the spouses Rosario. | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We note that petitioner Raquel-Santos did not protest the order for him to pay the cash advances in his Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision. He raises the issue for the first time in this petition, which should not be allowed. A question that was never raised in courts below cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time on appeal without offending basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[67] In any case, petitioner Raquel-Santos had every opportunity to refute the Supplemental Affidavit, together with the vouchers and checks, but he did not submit any counter evidence. Petitioner is clearly estopped from questioning the order for him to pay the cash advances. | |||||
|
2006-03-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The rule on redemption is liberally construed in favor of the original owner of the property and the policy of the law is to aid rather than defeat him in the exercise of his right of redemption.[41] | |||||
|
2001-03-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| To bolster its cause, Safic raises the novel point that the IVO Board of Directors did not set limitations on the extent of Monteverde's authority to sell coconut oil. It must be borne in mind in this regard that a question that was never raised in the courts below can not be allowed to be raised for the first time on appeal without offending basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[18] Such an issue was not brought to the fore either in the trial court or the appellate court, and would have been disregarded by the latter tribunal for the reasons previously stated. With more reason, the same does not deserve consideration by this Court. | |||||
|
2001-02-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The spirit rather than the letter of the statute determines its construction, hence, a statute must be read according to its spirit or intent. For what is within the spirit is within the statute although it is not within the letter thereof, and that which is within the letter but not within the spirit is not within the statute. Stated differently, a thing which is within the intent of the lawmaker is as much within the statute as if within the letter; and a thing which is within the letter of the statute is not within the statute unless within the intent of the lawmakers.[23] Stated differently, the legal perspective within which the right to redeem can still be availed of or not must be viewed in the light of the dictum that the policy of the law is to aid rather than defeat the right of redemption.[24] In short, the statute, being remedial, is to be construed liberally to effectuate the remedy and carry out its evident spirit and purpose.[25] Thus, the Court allowed parties in several cases to perfect their right of redemption even beyond the period prescribed therefor.[26] We can do no less vis-à-vis the prevailing facts of this case for the following reasons: First, we are confronted with the grossly and patently iniquitous spectacle of petitioners being made to pay a money judgment amounting to P57,396.85 with their two (2) parcels of prime land conservatively valued at that time at P500,000.00, on account of the lapse of the period given for exercising their right - despite their apparent willingness and ability to pay the money judgment. Although this was the very fact in issue in the second case, the gross disparity of the money judgment to the value of the levied real properties was not lost on the Court when, in Cometa v. IAC,[27] it said that - | |||||
|
2000-02-18 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners, however, cannot now question the validity of the Notice of Garnishment since it was not an issue raised in the courts below.[22] | |||||