This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The right of a bank to foreclose a mortgage upon the mortgagor's failure to pay his obligation must be exercised according to its clear mandate, and every requirement of the law must be complied with, lest the valid exercise of the right would end. The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it disappears when it is abused especially to the prejudice of others.[30] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| ERHC indeed requested postponement of the auction sale scheduled on 12 August 1986.[24] However, the records are bereft of any evidence that ERHC requested the postponement without need of republication of the notice of sale. In Philippine National Bank v. Nepomuceno Productions Inc.,[25] the Court held that:x x x To request postponement of the sale is one thing; to request it without need of compliance with the statutory requirements is another. Respondents, therefore, did not commit any act that would have estopped them from questioning the validity of the foreclosure sale for non-compliance with Act No. 3135. x x x The form of the notice of extrajudicial sale is now prescribed in Circular No. 7-2002[26] issued by the Office of the Court Administrator on 22 January 2002. Section 4(a) of Circular No. 7-2002 provides that: | |||||