Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. SPS. JANUARIO ANTONIO VELOSO AND NATIVIDAD VELOSO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 167420 2009-06-05	ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. RUPERTO JOSE H. MATEO PERALTA, J.
Sec. 78. In the event of foreclosure, whether judicially or extrajudicially, of any mortgage on real estate which is security for any loan granted before the passage of this Act or under the provisions of this Act, the mortgagor or debtor whose real property has been sold at public auction, judicially or extrajudicially, for the full or partial payment of an obligation to any bank, banking or credit institution, within the purview of this Act shall have the right, within one year after the sale of the real estate as a result of the foreclosure of the respective mortgage, to redeem the property by paying the amount fixed by the court in the order of execution, or the amount due under the mortgage deed, as the case may be, with interest thereon at the rate specified in the mortgage, and all the costs, and judicial and other expenses incurred by the bank or institution concerned by reason of the execution and sale and as a result of the custody of said property less the income received from the property. In BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Veloso,[10] the Court had occasion to state the requirements for the redemption of the foreclosed property. The Court held:The general rule in redemption is that it is not sufficient that a person offering to redeem manifests his desire to do so. The statement of intention must be accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of payment. This constitutes the exercise of the right to repurchase.
	GR No. 178449 2008-10-17	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. ELISA TAN AND ANTONIO TAN AND SPS. LILIAN TAN AND MARCIAL SEE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Even assuming that such offer was made by the spouses Elisa and Antonio Tan within the one-year redemption period, we find said offer in the amount of two million pesos to be invalid and ineffectual. It is clear from the letter that the tender was in installments. Same will not do for there is no showing that Metrobank agreed via such payment. By paying in installments, the redemption period will be extended. It could be otherwise if Metrobank agreed; in such case, the concept of legal redemption will be converted into one of conventional redemption.[39] Moreover, though there was an offer, there was no evidence that there was an actual and simultaneous tender of payment. Redemption within the period allowed by law is not a matter of intent but a question of payment or valid tender of the full redemption price within said period.[40]
	GR NO. 171354 2007-03-07	MARYLOU B. TOLENTINO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As correctly pointed out by the appellate court, the general rule in redemption is that it is not sufficient that a person offering to redeem simply manifests his/her desire to do so. The statement of intention must be accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of payment. This constitutes the exercise of the right to repurchase. Bona fide redemption necessarily implies a reasonable and valid tender of the entire purchase price, otherwise the rule on the redemption period fixed by law can easily be circumvented.[30]
	GR NO. 138703 2006-06-30	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA AZCUNA, J.
Corollarily, the threat to foreclose the mortgage would not in itself vitiate consent as it is a threat to enforce a just or legal claim through competent authority.[45] It bears emphasis that the foreclosure of mortgaged properties in case of default in payment of a debtor is a legal remedy given by law to a creditor.[46] In the event of default by the mortgage debtor in the performance of the principal obligation, the mortgagee undeniably has the right to cause the sale at public auction of the mortgaged property for payment of the proceeds to the mortgagee.[47]
	GR NO. 143896 2005-08-08	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Veloso,[13] we held:The general rule in redemption is that it is not sufficient that a person offering to redeem manifests his desire to do so. The statement of intention must be accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of payment. This constitutes the exercise of the right to repurchase.
	GR No. 143896 2005-07-08	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Veloso,[13] we held:The general rule in redemption is that it is not sufficient that a person offering to redeem manifests his desire to do so. The statement of intention must be accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of payment. This constitutes the exercise of the right to repurchase.