Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRUDENTIAL BANK v. RENATO M. MARTINEZ

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 183774 2012-11-14	PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. ARTURO DY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the January 30, 2008 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 51672, which set aside the October 5, 1994 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 22 (RTC) and directed the Register of Deeds of Cebu City to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 51768[3] and 51901[4] in the names of respondents Arturo Dy and Bernardo Dy (Dys) and to issue the corresponding TCTs in the name of respondent Cipriana Delgado (Cipriana).
	GR No. 158755 2012-06-18	SPS. FRANCISCO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK BERSAMIN, J.
Indeed, as we indicated in Prudential Bank v. Martinez,[23] the fact that the mortgaged property was sold at an amount less than its actual market value should not militate against the right to such recovery.[24]
	GR No. 175816 2011-12-07	BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. MA. ARLYN T. AVENIDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We explained in Prudential Bank v. Martinez [22] that: [T]he fact that the mortgaged property is sold at an amount less than its actual market value should not militate against the right to such recovery. We fail to see any disadvantage going for the mortgagor. On the contrary, a mortgagor stands to gain with a reduced price because he possesses the right of redemption. When there is the right to redeem, inadequacy of price should not be material, because the judgment debtor may reacquire the property or also sell his right to redeem and thus recover the loss he claims to have suffered by the reason of the price obtained at the auction sale. Generally, in forced sales, low prices are usually offered and the mere inadequacy of the price obtained at the sheriff's sale unless shocking to the conscience will not be sufficient to set aside a sale if there is no showing that in the event of a regular sale, a better price can be obtained. [23] (Citations omitted.)
	GR NO. 150097 2007-02-26	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ALEJANDRO CORONA, J.
Petitioner assigns as error the failure of the CA to rule on its deficiency claim. It alleged that the price the mortgaged property was sold for (P104,000) was less than the amount of respondents' indebtedness (P131,642.33), thus it is entitled to claim the difference (P27,642.33) with interest. Respondents cannot be held liable for the deficiency claim. While it is true that in extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, the mortgagee has the right to recover the deficiency from the debtor,[36] this presupposes that the foreclosure must first be valid.[37]