Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ALEJANDRO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 160107 2014-10-22	SPS. JAIME SEBASTIAN AND EVANGELINE SEBASTIAN v. BPI FAMILY BANK BERSAMIN, J.
The CA correctly found that there was basis to declare the petitioners' entire outstanding loan obligation mature as to warrant the foreclosure of their mortgage. It is settled that foreclosure is valid only when the debtor is in default in the payment of his obligation.[36] Here, the records show that the petitioners were defaulting borrowers, a fact that the CA thoroughly explained in the following manner: Appellants insist that there was no valid ground for appellee bank to institute the foreclosure proceedings because they still have a pending case for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. They argue that the reason for the bank's foreclosure is their dismissal from employment. As they are still questioning the illegality of their dismissal, the bank has no legal basis in foreclosing the property.
	GR No. 193723 2011-07-20	GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION v. SPS. LIBRADO RAMOS AND REMEDIOS RAMOS VELASCO JR., J.
The issue of whether demand was made before the foreclosure was effected is essential. If demand was made and duly received by the respondents and the latter still did not pay, then they were already in default and foreclosure was proper. However, if demand was not made, then the loans had not yet become due and demandable. This meant that respondents had not defaulted in their payments and the foreclosure by petitioner was premature. Foreclosure is valid only when the debtor is in default in the payment of his obligation. [22]
	GR No. 176479 2010-10-06	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. PEDRO P. BUENAVENTURA NACHURA, J.
It is settled that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal. Inquiry into the veracity of the CA's factual findings and conclusions is not the function of the Supreme Court, because this Court is not a trier of facts. Neither is it our function to reexamine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties. [12]
	GR No. 179812 2010-07-06	ETERTON MULTI-RESOURCES CORPORATION v. FILIPINO PIPE NACHURA, J.
It is evident that the issue raised in this petition is the correctness of the factual findings of the RTC and the CA. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. An inquiry into the veracity of the CA's factual findings and conclusions is not the function of the Supreme Court, for this Court is not a trier of facts. Neither is it our function to reexamine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties.[11]
	GR NO. 130403 2007-07-30	FRANCISCO GONZALES v. SEVERINO C. LIM CORONA, J.
Respondents' assertion that they were merely forced to deal directly with Tanglaw because the latter had threatened to evict them has no merit. As the RTC and the CA both held, respondents, at the time of the sale, already knew that one of Motown's two lease contracts with Tanglaw had been terminated. This being a finding of fact, we shall not look into it, absent any compelling reason to do so.[12] Respondents therefore cannot invoke this argument to justify their actions and evade their liability to petitioner.