This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The previous case where we recognized the petitioner-heirs' right of legal redemption is Mariano v. CA.[2] To quote, by way of background, the factual antecedents that Mariano recognized:It appears on record that the decedent Francisco Gosiengfiao is the registered owner of a residential lot located at Ugac Sur, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, particularly described as follows, to wit: | |||||
|
2005-04-15 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The interpretation was somehow modified in the case of De Conejero, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.[34] wherein it was pointed out that Article 1623 "does not prescribe a particular form of notice, nor any distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner" thus, as long as the redemptioner was notified in writing of the sale and the particulars thereof, the redemption period starts to run. This view was reiterated in Etcuban v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.,[35] Cabrera v. Villanueva,[36] Garcia, et al. v. Calaliman, et al.,[37] Distrito, et al. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.,[38] and Mariano, et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.[39] | |||||