This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| On 10 January 2012, the general counsel of the BSP submitted a Manifestation.[18] It explained that its interest in the case stemmed from its receivership-liquidation of the MBC, particularly the settlement of the latter's obligations to the BSP.[19] As discussed in our Decision, the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 85960 allowed petitioner CCFI, as the mortgage debtor of MBC, to sell its assets, including the subject landholding, "at their fair market value, under the best terms and condition and for the highest price under current real estate appraisals."[20] Counsel for the BSP posited that its interest in the case ended upon the sale of the subject land to ALI, after which the BSP entered into settlement scheme with MBC.[21] | |||||