This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-08-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Finally, in Litonjua v. L & R Corporation,[80] the Supreme Court recognized the validity and enforceability of a stipulation in a mortgage contract granting the mortgagee the right of first refusal should the mortgagor decide to sell the property subject of the mortgage. | |||||
|
2011-07-27 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Contrary to petitioners' contention, the Dys and Maxinos have legal personality to redeem the subject properties despite the fact that the sale to the Dys and Maxinos was without DRBI's consent. In Litonjua v. L & R Corporation,[41] this Court declared valid the sale by the mortgagor of mortgaged property to a third person notwithstanding the lack of written consent by the mortgagee, and likewise recognized the third person's right to redeem the foreclosed property, to wit: Coming now to the issue of whether the redemption offered by PWHAS on account of the spouses Litonjua is valid, we rule in the affirmative. The sale by the spouses Litonjua of the mortgaged properties to PWHAS is valid. Therefore, PWHAS stepped into the shoes of the spouses Litonjua on account of such sale and was in effect, their successor-in-interest. As such, it had the right to redeem the property foreclosed by L & R Corporation. Again, Tambunting, supra, clarifies that - | |||||