This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-10 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| As the records disclose, despite notice on June 19, 1984 of the scheduled foreclosure sale, petitioners, for unexplained reasons, failed to impugn the real estate mortgage and oppose the public auction sale for a period of more than seven (7) years from said notice.[63] As such, petitioners' action is already barred by laches, which, as case law holds, operates not really to penalize neglect or sleeping on one's rights, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation.[64] As mortgagors desiring to attack a mortgage as invalid, petitioners should act with reasonable promptness, else its unreasonable delay may amount to ratification.[65] Verily, to allow petitioners to assert their right to the subject properties now after their unjustified failure to act within a reasonable time would be grossly unfair to PSMB, and perforce should not be sanctioned. | |||||
|
2014-02-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As early as the case of Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co. v. Poizat,[76] we already ruled that "in order to bind the principal by a deed executed by an agent, the deed must upon its face purport to be made, signed and sealed in the name of the principal."[77] In other words, the mere fact that the agent was authorized to mortgage the property is not sufficient to bind the principal, unless the deed was executed and signed by the agent for and on behalf of his principal. This ruling was adhered to and reiterated with consistency in the cases of Rural Bank of Bombon (Camarines Sur), Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[78] Gozun v. Mercado,[79] and Far East Bank and Trust Company (Now Bank of the Philippine Island) v. Cayetano.[80] | |||||