This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-10-20 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Nowhere is it alleged that mistake, violence, fraud, or intimidation attended the execution of the promissory note. Still, respondent insists that she was "forced" into signing the promissory note because petitioner would not sign the document required by the BIR. In one case, the Court - in characterizing a similar argument by respondents therein - held that such allegation is tantamount to saying that the other party exerted undue influence upon them. However, the Court said that the fact that respondents were "forced" to sign the documents does not amount to vitiated consent.[15] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| This is contrary to the express agreement of the parties, something which Central Surety wants this Court to undo. We reiterate that, as a rule, courts cannot intervene to save parties from disadvantageous provisions of their contracts if they consented to the same freely and voluntarily.[39] | |||||
|
2008-04-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A mortgage is a mere accessory contract to the loan obligation, thus, the validity of the mortgage depends on the validity of the loan it is supposed to secure. The debtor cannot escape the consequences of the mortgage contract once the validity of the loan is upheld.[28] And when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose on the mortgage, have the property seized and sold, and apply the proceeds to the balance of the loan obligation. Foreclosure is proper if the debtor is in default in the payment of his loan obligation. | |||||