This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
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] | |||||