Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. MAXIMO LANDRITO v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 195546 2012-03-14	GOODLAND COMPANY v. ASIA UNITED BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Finally, respondents argued that the three (3) months period prescribed by the General Banking Law of 2000 is a valid limitation on the right of redemption, which is the exception rather than the general rule. This Court has already upheld the restriction on the exercise of the right of redemption in Landrito, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[14].
	GR No. 185644 2010-03-02	HEIRS OF ESTELITA BURGOS-LIPAT v. HEIRS OF EUGENIO D. TRINIDAD CORONA, J.
The one-year redemption period applied by the CA is the rule that generally applies to foreclosure of mortgage by a bank.[14] The period of redemption is not tolled by the filing of a complaint or petition for annulment of the mortgage and the foreclosure sale conducted pursuant to the said mortgage.[15] However, considering the exceptional circumstances surrounding this case, we will not apply the rule in this instance pro hac vice.
	GR No. 178449 2008-10-17	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. ELISA TAN AND ANTONIO TAN AND SPS. LILIAN TAN AND MARCIAL SEE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The filing of Civil Case No. 85-33933 (Annulment and Cancellation of Extra-judicial Foreclosure Sale ) did not toll the running of the one-year redemption period. Settled is the rule that the period within which to redeem the property sold at a sheriff's sale is not suspended by the institution of an action to annul the foreclosure sale.[32] Thus, both lower courts erred in ruling that the one-year redemption period was interrupted.