This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-08-24 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Respondent filed the certificate of sale and affidavit of consolidation with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on September 13, 2004. This terminated the redemption period granted by Section 47 of the General Banking Law. Because consolidation of title becomes a right upon the expiration of the redemption period,[23] respondent became the owner of the foreclosed properties.[24] Therefore, when petitioner opposed the ex parte motion for the issuance of the writ of possession on January 10, 2005 in the Bulacan RTC, it no longer had any legal interest in the Bulacan properties. | |||||
|
2002-09-19 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| contradiction of the terms of an agreement reduced into writing by testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing of the document, other or different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties. As applied herein, the alleged terms of the contemporaneous agreement between petitioner-spouses and Simeon Ong Tiam cannot be proved for they are not embodied in the mortgage deed but exist only in their faint recollection. Only the terms of the loan and mortgage agreement providing for six (6) months maturity from date of execution thereof and the interest rate of three percent (3%) per month are worth considering and implementing. The instant case is not unprecedented. In Tarnate v. Court of Appeals[52] involving a case of foreclosure of real estate mortgage that was resolved by means of summary judgment where neither the existence of the loans and the mortgage | |||||