This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-07-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This case involves a contract of insurance, the authenticity and validity of which was uncontested. In exempting insurers from liability under the contract, proof thereof must be clear, credible and convincing. Fundamental is the rule that the contract is the law between the parties and, that absent any showing that its provisions are wholly or in part contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, it shall be enforced to the letter by the courts.[14] | |||||
|
2009-06-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| All correspondence relative to this mortgage, including demand letters, summonses, subpoenas or notifications of any judicial or extra-judicial actions shall be sent to the Mortgagor at the address hereinabove given or at the address that may hereafter be given in writing by the Mortgagor to the Mortgagee, and the mere act of sending any correspondence by mail or by personal delivery to the said address shall be valid and effective notice to the Mortgagor for all legal purposes, and the fact that any communication is not actually received by the Mortgagor, or that it has been returned unclaimed to the Mortgagee, or that no person was found at the address given, or that the address is fictitious, or cannot be located, shall not excuse or relieve the Mortgagor from the effect of such notice.[8] This specific provision in the parties' real estate mortgage agreement is the same provision involved in the case of Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Wong,[9] where the Court made the following pronouncement:It is bad enough that the mortgagor has no choice but to yield his property in a foreclosure proceeding. It is infinitely worse, if prior thereto, he was denied of his basic right to be informed of the impending loss of his property. This is another instance when law and morals echo the same sentiment. | |||||
|
2005-02-17 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's negligence here was so gross as to amount to a wilful injury to Respondent Carmen. Article 21 of the Civil Code states that "any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage." Further, Article 2219 provides for the recovery of moral damages for acts referred to in the aforementioned Article 21. Hence, the bank is liable for moral damages to respondent.[17] | |||||
|
2003-03-04 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, assuming arguendo that the written waivers are valid, we find noticeable flaws that would nevertheless invalidate the foreclosure proceedings. First, the Agreements, as worded, only waived "further republication of the notice of sale." Nothing in the Agreements indicates that the parties likewise dispensed with the reposting of the notices of sale. As there was no reposting of notice of the May 29, 1981 sale, the foreclosure fell short of the requirements of Act No. 3135. Second, we observe that the Agreements were executed and filed with the sheriff several days after each rescheduled date. As stated in the facts, the first agreement was timely filed, two days prior to the originally scheduled sale on December 5, 1980. The second agreement, however, was executed and filed eight days after the rescheduled sale on February 5, 1981. The third agreement was executed and filed ten days after the rescheduled sale on February 28, 1981. The fourth agreement was timely executed, but was filed with the sheriff one month after the rescheduled sale on March 30, 1981. On the rescheduled dates, therefore, no public sale occurred, nor was there any request to postpone filed with the sheriff, except for the first one. In short, the Agreements are clearly defective for having been belatedly executed and filed with the sheriff. The party who may be said to be at fault for this failure, and who should bear the consequences, is no other than PNB, the mortgagee in the case at bar. It is the mortgagee who causes the mortgaged property to be sold, and the date of sale is fixed upon his instruction.[33] We have held that the mortgagee's right to foreclose a mortgage must be exercised according to the clear mandate of the law. Every requirement of the law must be complied with, lest the valid exercise of the right would end.[34] PNB's inaction on the scheduled date of sale and belated filing of requests to postpone may be deemed as an abandonment of the petition to foreclose it filed with the sheriff. Consequently, its right to foreclose the mortgage based on said petition lapsed. | |||||
|
2002-12-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| published once a week for at least three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or city." On this score, it is well settled that what Act No. 3135 requires is: (1) the posting of notices of sale in three public places; and, (2) the publication of the same in a newspaper of general circulation.[17] Failure to publish the notice of sale | |||||