This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-10-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Although the respondents admitted the existence of the mortgage, they somehow denied knowledge of its foreclosure. Yet, in asserting their superior right to the property, they relied on and cited the entry dated February 11, 1992 concerning the release of mortgage inscribed on TCT No. 20458. This duplicity the Court cannot countenance. Being the heirs and successors-in-interest of the late Fernando F. Yapcinco, they could not repudiate the foreclosure sale and its consequences, and escape such consequences that bound and concluded their predecessor-in-interest whose shoes they only stepped into.[40] Given their position on the lack of judicial confirmation of the sale in favor of Apolinario Cruz, they should have extinguished the mortgage by exercising their equity of redemption through paying the secured debt. They did not do so, and, instead, they sought the annulment of TCT No. 243719 and caused the issuance of another title in their name. | |||||
|
2009-03-04 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 1311 of the Civil Code, the heirs are bound by the contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest except when the rights and obligations therein are not transmissible by their nature, by stipulation or by provision of law. A contract of lease is, therefore, generally transmissible to the heirs of the lessor or lessee. It involves a property right and, as such, the death of a party does not excuse non-performance of the contract.[29] The rights and obligations pass to the heirs of the deceased and the heir of the deceased lessor is bound to respect the period of the lease.[30] The same principle applies to the option to renew the lease. As a general rule, covenants to renew a lease are not personal but will run with the land.[31] Consequently, the successors-in-interest of the lessee are entitled to the benefits, while that of the lessor are burdened with the duties and obligations, which said covenants conferred and imposed on the original parties. | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Finally, the general rule that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest applies in the present case. Article 1311[32] of the NCC is the basis of this rule. It is clear from the said provision that whatever rights and obligations the decedent have over the property were transmitted to the heirs by way of succession, a mode of acquiring the property, rights and obligations of the decedent to the extent of the value of the inheritance of the heirs.[33] Thus, the heirs cannot escape the legal consequence of a transaction entered into by their predecessor-in-interest because they have inherited the property subject to the liability affecting their common ancestor. Being heirs, there is privity of interest between them and their deceased mother. They only succeed to what rights their mother had and what is valid and binding against her is also valid and binding as against them. The death of a party does not excuse nonperformance of a contract which involves a property right and the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the personal representatives of the deceased. Similarly, nonperformance is not excused by the death of the party when the other party has a property interest in the subject matter of the contract.[34] | |||||
|
2005-04-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| A lease contract is not essentially personal in character.[26] Thus, the rights and obligations therein are transmissible to the heirs. The general rule is that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest except when the rights and obligations arising therefrom are not transmissible by (1) their nature, (2) stipulation or (3) provision of law.[27] | |||||
|
2004-02-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A lease contract is not essentially personal in character. Thus, the rights and obligations therein are transmissible to the heirs.[11] The general rule, therefore, is that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest except when the rights and obligations arising therefrom are not transmissible by (1) their nature, (2) stipulation or (3) provision of law.[12] In the subject Contract of Lease, not only were there no stipulations prohibiting any transmission of rights, but its very terms and conditions explicitly provided for the transmission of the rights of the lessor and of the lessee to their respective heirs and successors. The contract is the law between the parties. The death of a party does not excuse nonperformance of a contract, which involves a property right, and the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the successors or representatives of the deceased. Similarly, nonperformance is not excused by the death of the party when the other party has a property interest in the subject matter of the contract.[13] | |||||