This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-01-30 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| PNB moved for reconsideration[31] but this was denied by the OP in its Order[32] dated February 10, 2004. On March 18, 2004, PNB filed with the CA a Petition for Review[33] under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, assailing the OP's June 18, 2003 and February 10, 2004 Orders. PNB argued that: (a) it is not bound by the contract between Lim and PALI as it is not a party thereto; (b) the power to annul the subject mortgage is judicial in nature and exclusively vested with the RTCs; (c) in Dy v. Court of Appeals,[34] this Court stated that there is nothing in Section 18 of P.D. No. 957 which provides that a mortgage without the HLURB's approval is null and void; (d) the remedy provided by Section 25 of P.D. No. 957 is redemption and not the nullification of the mortgage; and (e) it is a mortgagee in good faith as PALI's titles do not bear an annotation of any lien or encumbrance at the time of the constitution of the subject mortgage. | |||||