This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, petitioners' allegation that they had signified their intention to avail of the incentive scheme (which they have equated to their intention to redeem the property), did not amount to an exercise of redemption precluding the bank from making the public sale.[20] In the case of China Banking Corporation v. Martir,[21] this Court expounded on what constitutes a proper exercise of the right of redemption, to wit: 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. | |||||
|
2010-04-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Before resolving the principal issue, we must point out the requirement of accreditation was imposed by the Court only in 2001, through A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC or the Guidelines in the Accreditation of Newspapers and Periodicals Seeking to Publish Judicial and Legal Notices and Other Similar Announcements and in the Raffle Thereof.[14] The present case involves an extrajudicial foreclosure conducted in 1996; thus, there were no such guidelines in effect during the questioned foreclosure. At any rate, the accreditation by the Executive Judge is not decisive of whether a newspaper is of general circulation.[15] | |||||