This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-06-27 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Prefatorily, Lazaro's claims for one-day salary differential, which was raised only before the CA, merits instant dismissal. This ruling is supported by basic considerations of due process, which prohibits the raising of issues for the first time on appeal.[43] Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court will not be considered by the reviewing court.[44] To consider them would be unfair to the adverse party, who would have no opportunity to present contrary evidence as it could have done had it been aware of the new theory at the time of the hearing before the trial court.[45] | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court is unconvinced by the CA's reasoning that petitioner Torres failed to pay the full redemption price on December 29, 1998. The amount of P402,993.60 paid by petitioner Torres already included the bid price paid by the Spouses Chua, capital gains and documentary stamp taxes, fees due to the Register of Deeds, and interest on the total amount for 18 months from June 30, 1997 to December 30, 1998. The only amounts not included were the expenses for payment of realty taxes and interest thereon. Indeed, it has been held that for a valid redemption, the amount tendered must include the following: (1) the full amount paid by the purchaser; (2) with an additional one percent per month interest on the purchase price up to the time of redemption; (3) together with the amount of any assessments or taxes which the purchaser may have paid thereon after purchase; (4) interest on the taxes paid by the purchaser at the rate of one percent per month up to the time of redemption; and (5) if the purchaser be also a creditor having a prior lien to that of the redemptioner, other than the judgment under which such purchase was made, the amount of such other lien, with interest.[12] However, in Baluyut v. Poblete,[13] the Court held that the purchaser is required to furnish copies of the amounts of assessments or taxes which he may have paid to inform the mortgagor or redemptioner of the actual amount which he should pay in case he chooses to exercise his right of redemption and if no such notice is given, the property may be redeemed without paying such assessments or taxes.[14] Then, in Cayton v. Zeonnix Trading Corporation,[15] the Court reiterated the ruling in Estanislao, Jr. v. Court of Appeals [16] that the payment of the full purchase price and interest thereon by a redemptioner, who had not been apprised of the amount of taxes paid by the purchaser, should already be considered sufficient for purposes of redemption if the redemptioner immediately pays the additional amount for taxes once notified of the deficiency. The Court deemed this to be in consonance with the policy of the law to aid rather than defeat the right of redemption. [17] Therefore, the amount paid by petitioner Torres on December 29, 1998 shall also be deemed sufficient for purposes of redemption. Petitioner Sheriff Jessie Belarmino acted properly in issuing a Certificate of Redemption to petitioner Torres. | |||||
|
2010-03-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In G.R. No. 176123, FPC has not discharged its burden of proof. Apart from its bare allegations, it has not come forward with any evidence, let alone a clear and convincing one, of non-compliance with the requirement of a minimum of five days prior notice of sale of property on execution. Hence, in the absence of contrary evidence, the presumption prevails that the sheriff performed his official duty of posting the notices of sale within the reglementary period.[39] In finding otherwise, the Manila RTC placed the burden of proof on the sheriff without jurisprudential basis. | |||||
|
2009-11-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals held that there was no proof that the conspicuous places where the notices of sale were posted were indeed public places as contemplated by law. The Court of Appeals mainly relied on the wordings of the Certificate of Posting which used the adjective "conspicuous" instead of "public" to define the places where the notices were posted. However, the Certificate of Posting also states that the copies of the Notice of Sheriff's Sale have been posted "in accordance with the provisions of Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118." Under Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, there is a presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, unless contradicted and overcome by other evidence. Foreclosure proceedings have in their favor the presumption of regularity and the party who seeks to challenge the proceedings has the burden of evidence to rebut the same.[16] In this case, respondent failed to prove her allegation that there was no compliance with the posting requirement. There was no evidence that the "conspicuous places" where the notices were posted were not "public places." In the absence of contrary evidence, the presumption prevails that the Sheriff performed his official duty of posting the notices of sale in 3 public places for no less than 20 days before the sale.[17] Furthermore, the date of the Notice of Sheriff's Sale[18] was 29 January 1992, which is more that 20 days from the scheduled public auction of the foreclosed property on 26 February 1992. | |||||
|
2009-03-25 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| This Court is not a trier of facts and, as a rule, it only entertains questions of law in a petition for review on certiorari. This rule, however, admits of exceptions such as when the assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of facts.[24] | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, the language employed in Sec. 5(g) and Sec. 5(h) is clear and bereft of any ambiguity. The SPA's stipulations reveal that the non-use or waiver of Sec. 5(h) does not preclude RCBC from availing itself of the second relief under Sec. 5(g). Article 1370 of the Civil Code is explicit that "if terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control." Since the terms of a contract have the force of law between the parties,[22] then the parties must respect and strictly conform to it. Lastly, it is a long held cardinal rule that when the terms of an agreement are reduced to writing, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such terms can be admitted other than the contents of the agreement itself.[23] Since the SPA is unambiguous, and petitioners failed to adduce evidence to the contrary, then they are legally bound to comply with it. | |||||