This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-10-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Section 16 of EO 81 insofar as the redemption price was concerned x x x x Thus, in DBP v. Mirang [66 SCRA 141 (1975)], the Court held that appellant could redeem the subject property by paying the entire amount he owed to the Bank on the date of the foreclosure sale, with interest thereon at the rate agreed upon, pursuant to Section 31 of CA 459. The ruling herein was reiterated by the Court in the more recent case of Dulay v. Cariaga [123 SCRA 794 (1983)]. In the earlier case of Nepomuceno v. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation [110 Phil 42 (1960)], the Court explained that Section 31 of CA 459, being a special law applicable only to properties mortgaged to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation - the predecessor of DBP - should prevail over Section 6 of Act No. 3135, which is a more general law applicable to all mortgaged properties extrajudicially foreclosed, regardless of the mortgagee.[20] In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Jimenez this Court clarified the proper applications of Sec. 31 of CA 459 and Sec. 30, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court[21] when we held that "Section 31 of Commonwealth Act No. 459, and not Section 26, | |||||