110.dbp-vs-aguirre-gr-no-144877-september-7-2001-real-estate-mortgage.docx
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 110.dbp-vs-aguirre-gr-no-144877-september-7-2001-real-estate-mortgage.docx as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 384
- Pages: 2
110. DBP vs Aguirre GR No 144877 September 7 2001 (Real Estate Mortgage)
FACTS: In 1980, petitioner DBP granted a loan to Veronica Aguirre. To secure the loan, respondent Aguirre executed a mortgage her property in Parañaque. As respondent Aguirre defaulted, petitioner DBP took steps in 1982 to foreclose the mortgage. DBP also offered to restructure the loan and gave Aguirre seven days to accept or reject the offer. As respondent did not respond to the offer, petitioner proceeded with the foreclosure of the mortgage. The notice for the foreclosure sale, to be held on September 25, 1985 in the municipal building of the Parañaque, was published in Mabuhay, a newspaper of general circulation in Bulacan and Metro Manila, in its issues of August 25, September 1, and 8, 1985. For some reason, however, the foreclosure sale scheduled on September 25, 1985 did not take place on the said date but on January 7, 1986, during which petitioner was the highest bidder for P99,300.00.
Aguirre petitioned to invalidate the the foreclosure sale on the ground that DBP failed to present proof of posting of the notice of sale rendered the foreclosure proceedings invalid. The CA ruled in favor of Aguirre, thus this petition.
ISSUE: Whether the foreclosure was valid or not.
HELD: No, the foreclosure was invalid. Under Act No. 3135, if the value of the property subject of the foreclosure is more than P400.00, the notice of sale must be posted and published. The failure to post a notice is not per se a ground for invalidating the sale provided that the notice thereof is duly published in a newspaper of general circulation.
However, although the notice of foreclosure sale was duly published, the sale did not take place as scheduled on September 25, 1985. Instead, it was held more than two months after the published date of the sale or on January 7, 1986. This renders the sale void. Wherefore, private respondent Veronica Aguirre is ordered to pay petitioner the amount of restructured loan of P247,740.70 with interest as stipulated in the contract of loan, as of January 7, 1986, without prejudice to the right of petitioner
DBP to foreclose the real estate mortgage executed by respondent Aguirre on April 21, 1980 upon failure of respondent Aguirre to pay the said amount.
FACTS: In 1980, petitioner DBP granted a loan to Veronica Aguirre. To secure the loan, respondent Aguirre executed a mortgage her property in Parañaque. As respondent Aguirre defaulted, petitioner DBP took steps in 1982 to foreclose the mortgage. DBP also offered to restructure the loan and gave Aguirre seven days to accept or reject the offer. As respondent did not respond to the offer, petitioner proceeded with the foreclosure of the mortgage. The notice for the foreclosure sale, to be held on September 25, 1985 in the municipal building of the Parañaque, was published in Mabuhay, a newspaper of general circulation in Bulacan and Metro Manila, in its issues of August 25, September 1, and 8, 1985. For some reason, however, the foreclosure sale scheduled on September 25, 1985 did not take place on the said date but on January 7, 1986, during which petitioner was the highest bidder for P99,300.00.
Aguirre petitioned to invalidate the the foreclosure sale on the ground that DBP failed to present proof of posting of the notice of sale rendered the foreclosure proceedings invalid. The CA ruled in favor of Aguirre, thus this petition.
ISSUE: Whether the foreclosure was valid or not.
HELD: No, the foreclosure was invalid. Under Act No. 3135, if the value of the property subject of the foreclosure is more than P400.00, the notice of sale must be posted and published. The failure to post a notice is not per se a ground for invalidating the sale provided that the notice thereof is duly published in a newspaper of general circulation.
However, although the notice of foreclosure sale was duly published, the sale did not take place as scheduled on September 25, 1985. Instead, it was held more than two months after the published date of the sale or on January 7, 1986. This renders the sale void. Wherefore, private respondent Veronica Aguirre is ordered to pay petitioner the amount of restructured loan of P247,740.70 with interest as stipulated in the contract of loan, as of January 7, 1986, without prejudice to the right of petitioner
DBP to foreclose the real estate mortgage executed by respondent Aguirre on April 21, 1980 upon failure of respondent Aguirre to pay the said amount.
More Documents from "Yvon Baguio"
115. Pnb Vs Ca -viene.docx
May 2020 8
Grad Thanks
December 2019 20
2009 Assessment Of Annual Fees
December 2019 11