Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 370 views

    Rural Bank of Malasiqui vs. Ceralde

    Uploaded by

    Grace Vetus
    This document summarizes two cases regarding prescription periods and equitable principles. The first case establishes that an action to annul a mortgage foreclosure prescribes 10 years from the date of foreclosure, as the right of action is based on a written contract. The second case discusses how equity principles apply when both parties are at fault, negating each other's mistakes and returning them to their previous status for legal analysis. The court held the respondents were entitled to the net value of their lands under the applicable law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rural Bank of Malasiqui vs. Ceralde

    Uploaded by

    Grace Vetus
    370 views1 page
    This document summarizes two cases regarding prescription periods and equitable principles. The first case establishes that an action to annul a mortgage foreclosure prescribes 10 years from the date of foreclosure, as the right of action is based on a written contract. The second case discusses how equity principles apply when both parties are at fault, negating each other's mistakes and returning them to their previous status for legal analysis. The court held the respondents were entitled to the net value of their lands under the applicable law.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes two cases regarding prescription periods and equitable principles. The first case establishes that an action to annul a mortgage foreclosure prescribes 10 years from the date of foreclosure, as the right of action is based on a written contract. The second case discusses how equity principles apply when both parties are at fault, negating each other's mistakes and returning them to their previous status for legal analysis. The court held the respondents were entitled to the net value of their lands under the applicable law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    370 views1 page

    Rural Bank of Malasiqui vs. Ceralde

    Uploaded by

    Grace Vetus
    This document summarizes two cases regarding prescription periods and equitable principles. The first case establishes that an action to annul a mortgage foreclosure prescribes 10 years from the date of foreclosure, as the right of action is based on a written contract. The second case discusses how equity principles apply when both parties are at fault, negating each other's mistakes and returning them to their previous status for legal analysis. The court held the respondents were entitled to the net value of their lands under the applicable law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CASE TITLE: Rural Bank of Malasiqui

    G.R. NO. 162032


    DATE: 2015-11-25
    1. BAR SUBJECT: Civil Law
    TOPIC: Prescription; Mortagage
    DOCTRINE: Art. 1142 CC provides: A mortgage action prescribes after 10 years.

    The phrase mortgage action used in Article 1142 refers to an action to foreclose a mortgage, and
    has nothing to do with an action to annul the foreclosure of the mortgage.

    On the other hand, an action to annul the foreclosure of the mortgage prescribes 10 years from
    the time when the foreclosure of the mortgage was made because the right of action is based
    upon a written contract.
    2. BAR SUBJECT: Civil Law
    TOPIC: Equity
    DOCTRINE: The foregoing elaborations also dispose of the final issue of whether or not the
    respondents were entitled to the net value of their landholdings. The petitioner contends that
    they were not because, firstly, the respondents had acted in bad faith by misrepresenting that
    the lands were not tenanted; and, secondly, title was already consolidated in its name when the
    lands came to be covered by OLT. We hold that the respondents were entitled to the net value
    of the lands not only by law but also by equity. As to equity, we need only to point out that
    when the parties are both at fault, the mistake of one is negated by the other's, and they are then
    returned to their previous status where the law will look at the facts as if neither is at fault. In
    such event, we can only apply the law, particularly Section 80 of Republic Act No. 3844, as
    amended, and such application favors the respondents, as we have already explained.

    You might also like