Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR NO. 170215 2007-08-28	SPS. ESMERALDO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Conspicously emphasized under Section 21 of Rule 39 is that if the amount of the loan is equal to the amount of the bid, there is no need to pay the amount in cash. Same provision mandates that in the absence of a third-party claim, the purchaser in an execution sale need not pay his bid if it does not exceed the amount of the judgment; otherwise, he shall pay only the excess.[27]
	GR No. 144435 2007-02-06	GUILLERMINA BALUYUT v. EULOGIO POBLETE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the second assigned error, the prevailing jurisprudence is that foreclosure proceedings have in their favor the presumption of regularity and the burden of evidence to rebut the same is on the petitioner.[22] Moreover, the Court agrees with the CA that a mortgagor who alleges absence of a requisite has the burden of establishing that fact.[23] Petitioner failed in this respect as she did not present any evidence to prove her allegations.