This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-12-03 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[28] the Court clarified this provision of the Rules of Court stating that, "It is settled jurisprudence that an issue which was neither averred in the complaint nor raised during the trial in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process." | |||||
|
2012-07-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner is correct. We have already established in Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[19] citing Ponce de Leon v. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation[20] and Sy v. Court of Appeals,[21] that the General Banking Act - being a special and subsequent legislation has the effect of amending Section 6 of Act No. 3135, insofar as the redemption price is concerned, when the mortgagee is a bank. Thus, the amount to be paid in redeeming the property is determined by the General Banking Act, and not by the Rules of Court in Relation to Act 3135. | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| SEC. 6. In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made under the special power hereinbefore referred to, the debtor, his successors in interest or any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of said debtor, or any person having a lien on the property subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold, may redeem the same at any time within the term of one year from and after the date of sale; and such redemption shall be governed by the provisions of sections four hundred and sixty-four to four hundred and sixty-six, inclusive,[8] of the Code of Civil Procedure, insofar as these are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Considering that petitioner is a banking institution, the determination of the redemption price for the foreclosed property should be governed by Section 78 of the General Banking Act. Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[9] is instructive:x x x Petitioner's contention that Section 78 of the General Banking Act governs the determination of the redemption price of the subject property is meritorious. In Ponce de Leon v. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, this Court had occasion to rule that Section 78 of the General Banking Act had the effect of amending Section 6 of Act No. 3135 insofar as the redemption price is concerned when the mortgagee is a bank, as in this case, or a banking or credit institution. The apparent conflict between the provisions of Act No. 3135 and the General Banking Act was, therefore, resolved in favor of the latter, being a special and subsequent legislation. This pronouncement was reiterated in the case of Sy v. Court of Appeals where we held that the amount at which the foreclosed property is redeemable is the amount due under the mortgage deed, or the outstanding obligation of the mortgagor plus interest and expenses in accordance with Section 78 of the General Banking Act. It was, therefore, manifest error on the part of the Court of Appeals to apply in the case at bar the provisions of Section 30, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in fixing the redemption price of the subject foreclosed property. And Section 78 provides: | |||||