Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. BONIFACIO AND FAUSTINA PARAY v. DRA. ABDULIA C. RODRIGUEZ

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 179756 2009-10-02	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. ROYAL CARGO CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner likewise posits that Section 13 permits a subsequent attaching creditor to "redeem" the mortgage only before the holding of the auction sale, drawing attention to Paray v. Rodriguez[25] which instructs that no right of redemption exists over personal property as the Chattel Mortgage Law is silent thereon.[26]
	GR No. 164648 2009-06-19	ERIC L. LEE v. HENRY J. TROCINO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
What petitioner appears to do is to attempt to evade the effects of the sale of his shares of stock to the buyers at the execution sale, which sale immediately transferred title thereto to the buyers. It should be restated that since there is no right to redeem personal property, the rights of ownership are vested to the purchaser at the foreclosure (or execution) sale and are not entangled in any suspensive condition that is implicit in a redemptive period.[9] Besides, the Resolution of the First Division of the Court dated November 13, 2002 refers to or affects only real and personal property, specifically, the Makati Sports Club, Inc. shares of stock belonging to Urban Bank; it cannot extend to the property or shares of stock subject of the present petition, which are nowhere mentioned in the said Resolution.
	GR No. 164648 2008-08-06	ERIC L. LEE v. HENRY J. TROCINO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Barring any irregularity in the execution process in Civil Case No. 754, we find no cogent reason to allow the dismissal of Civil Case No. 1088, much less an indirect contempt charge against the respondents to prosper. By his own inaction, Lee failed to participate in the execution sale or to timely post a supersedeas bond to stay execution of the trial court's decision. This eleventh-hour attempt to salvage and correct that which has been caused by his own undoing, is in vain. Notwithstanding his victory in the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 65756,[52] he could no longer recover the personal properties sold at execution sale, except only upon Peña's indemnity bond. Since there is no right to redeem personal property, the rights of ownership are vested to the purchaser at the foreclosure (or execution) sale and are not entangled in any suspensive condition that is implicit in a redemptive period.[53]