legal Free Legal Advice

[Dr_PepPeR]

I beg to disagree.

 

You have to correlate the civil code provisions on contracts, lease, and mortgage with the appropriate provisions of the Rules of Court on foreclosure.

 

First, basic is the principle that contracts bind not only the parties thereto but also their assigns and heirs. As such, the bank is obliged to observe the lease contract made by the company with the family.

 

Second, foreclosure per se does not give title to the purchaser. Thus, it cannot automatically rescind the lease contract. In fact, the Rules of Court Rule 39 Section 32 says that the rent, income and earnings of the property subject to redemption pertain to the judgment obligor until the expiration of his redemption period, whether equity of redemption or right of redemption.

 

Third, a mortgage does not vest any real rights to the mortgagee. It is merely a contract of security. In fact, a mortgage that prohibits the alienation of the subject property is absolutely prohibited.

 

In the instant case, there is no mention whether the redemption period has already expired. Redemption periods for foreclosure sales vary if it was made judicially or extrajudicially.

 

Assuming that such has expired and the bank has already perfected the action for consolidation which was given due course by the court (as shown by the court's order for the company to vacate the premises, which if the preceding sentence was not observed, i.e. that the redemption period has expired and the judgment obligee has moved for consolidation - the court gravely abused its discretion), go back to the first. It is bound by the lease contract executed by the company and the family.

 

Fourth, unless and until the bank successfully ejects them from the property, the family has no cause of action. If the bank insists on making a new contract and refuses the payment of rent under the old contract, the family can consign the payment with the courts. The bank has to file an ejectment suit to regain possession of the property. The grounds for ejectment of a lessee are the following:

 

Art. 1673. The lessor may judicially eject the lessee for any of the following causes:

 

(1) When the period agreed upon, or that which is fixed for the duration of leases under Articles 1682 and 1687, has expired;

 

(2) Lack of payment of the price stipulated;

 

(3) Violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the contract;

 

(4) When the lessee devotes the thing leased to any use or service not stipulated which causes the deterioration thereof; or if he does not observe the requirement in No. 2 of Article 1657, as regards the use thereof.

 

Reviewing the circumstances, such an action should fail.

 

Yes, you're quite correct. Based on my experiences with REMs prepared by banks, the REM has a clause that a lease, particularly one that is long term, requires consent of the mortgagee. Since the REM is registered, and the registration constitutes notice on the whole world, the lessee is considered to have known the restrictions on the use of the property. I also assumed that there was a court order already to vacate, so it seems that possession has already been ruled on. Thanks for your input, I learned a few things.

[jake_roxas]

^tol!

 

i love you!

 

hehehehehe

 

hahaha. i love u too.

[jake_roxas]

Thank you for your insight Dr. P. I admit that i have overlooked this angle. Thanks again.

 

 

I have to make an assumption here, which is that the condo unit was mortgaged to the BANK. If in fact this is the case, a mortgage contract drawn up by the BANK will usually prohibit the lease of the premises unless a) the business of the Mortgagor involves the lease of the properties mortgaged there is prior written consent by the BANK. In any case, the registration of the mortgage by annotation in the Registry of Deeds constitutes a notice to the whole world that the property is subject to an encumbrance and therefore any subsequent dealings on the property, especially with respect to the exercise of rights of ownership, should consider the terms of the annotated real estate mortgage. Therefore, the terms of the lease are always subject to the exercise of the rights of the BANK as a foreclosing mortgagee.

 

With the caveat that I am not a practicing lawyer, the FAMILY's cause of action I guess would be to compel the enforcement of the lease contract on the BANK and the OWNER COMPANY. As I've said, I believe that the lease contract is inferior to the mortgage contract, due to the registration and annotation of the mortgage. The remedy would be first to compel compliance with the lease contract, then if this cannot be done, damages against the OWNER COMPANY. I think it will be proper to intervene in the same case since the FAMILY is an interested party in the property subject of litigation.

[jake_roxas]

Thanks Bro for your answer. A big help indeed.

 

You have to correlate the civil code provisions on contracts, lease, and mortgage with the appropriate provisions of the Rules of Court on foreclosure.

 

First, basic is the principle that contracts bind not only the parties thereto but also their assigns and heirs. As such, the bank is obliged to observe the lease contract made by the company with the family.

 

Second, foreclosure per se does not give title to the purchaser. Thus, it cannot automatically rescind the lease contract. In fact, the Rules of Court Rule 39 Section 32 says that the rent, income and earnings of the property subject to redemption pertain to the judgment obligor until the expiration of his redemption period, whether equity of redemption or right of redemption.

 

Third, a mortgage does not vest any real rights to the mortgagee. It is merely a contract of security. In fact, a mortgage that prohibits the alienation of the subject property is absolutely prohibited.

 

In the instant case, there is no mention whether the redemption period has already expired. Redemption periods for foreclosure sales vary if it was made judicially or extrajudicially.

 

Assuming that such has expired and the bank has already perfected the action for consolidation which was given due course by the court (as shown by the court's order for the company to vacate the premises, which if the preceding sentence was not observed, i.e. that the redemption period has expired and the judgment obligee has moved for consolidation - the court gravely abused its discretion), go back to the first. It is bound by the lease contract executed by the company and the family.

 

Fourth, unless and until the bank successfully ejects them from the property, the family has no cause of action. If the bank insists on making a new contract and refuses the payment of rent under the old contract, the family can consign the payment with the courts. Reviewing the circumstances, such an action should fail.

[moichi]

yup thats right, "animo disponendi", or the absence/lack of it, is the biggest obstacle this theory would have to hurdle considering the pro-forma nature of these SPAs. but i am still interested in how the SPAs were actually worded.

 

 

Guys,

 

here's the edited version of the spa. (without the names, addresses & other info)

 

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

 

I, ____ Filipino, of legal age, with address at ____, do hereby name, constitute and appoint _____, Filipino, of legal age and with address at ______, to be my true and lawful attorney, for me and in my name, place and stead, manage, administer, build or improve on, lease and collect rent payments under any such lease contracts, sign and execute any and all necessary documents including contracts, application for permits and licenses relative to the foregoing purposes, with respect to the following described real property, to wit:

 

A parcel of land (--- description of property follows ---)

 

of which I am the registered owner as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No.___ the Registry of Deeds of ___; and all its improvements therein;

 

HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto my said attorney full powers and authority to do and perform all and every act requisite or necessary to carry into effect the foregoing authority, as fully to all intents and purposes as I might or could lawfully do if personally present, and hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said attorney shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this __ day of ___, 2001, in ____, Philippines.

 

 

is this helpful?

[b_9904]

Kausapin yung ama na mag-execute ng affidavit to allow his child to use his surname, otherwise wala ka nang remedy, kasi nga ang general rule ay - illegitimate child uses the surname of the mother. Or, kung hindi pa rehistrado yung bata, irehistro sunod sa pangalan ng ama. Pag lumabas na yung birth certificate yun na ang kailangang sundin.

 

Thank you po sobra!

 

: )

[roundhead]

im planning to buy a brand new Laptop , can u pls give me some advice which best to buy

from my budget of 50K-70K.

[_Pabling]

im planning to buy a brand new Laptop , can u pls give me some advice which best to buy

from my budget of 50K-70K.

 

what are you planning to do with the system? is it for games? or for wireless access? or for office work? thanks.

 

you can also go to http://www.pcx.com.ph/showcase/ para sa price list or sa http://www.villman.com/ HTH

[blackwolf]

im not quite sure but under the new developments of the law, the consent of the father to use his surname by the illegitimate child is not necessary as long as the child is recognized and filiation is established in the birth certificate. Just my opinion.

[jake_roxas]

i think my wild imagination has its limits. what do you think senator rocco? is there a way to go around this document?

 

 

Guys,

 

here's the edited version of the spa. (without the names, addresses & other info)

 

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

 

I, ____ Filipino, of legal age, with address at ____, do hereby name, constitute and appoint _____, Filipino, of legal age and with address at ______, to be my true and lawful attorney, for me and in my name, place and stead, manage, administer, build or improve on, lease and collect rent payments under any such lease contracts, sign and execute any and all necessary documents including contracts, application for permits and licenses relative to the foregoing purposes, with respect to the following described real property, to wit:

 

A parcel of land (--- description of property follows ---)

 

of which I am the registered owner as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No.___ the Registry of Deeds of ___; and all its improvements therein;

 

HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto my said attorney full powers and authority to do and perform all and every act requisite or necessary to carry into effect the foregoing authority, as fully to all intents and purposes as I might or could lawfully do if personally present, and hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said attorney shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this __ day of ___, 2001, in ____, Philippines.

is this helpful?

[endless12345]

Help, my internet explorer always hang up......

 

Di ko makalipat from one page to another, lalo na pag naka log ako sa MTC.....

 

use FireFox temporarily.

gamit ko FireFox ngayon to browse MTC, ok lahat. mas safe gamitin ang FireFox laban sa spyware and virus na marami sa Internet Explorer. less problems para sa iyo kung mag FireFox ka. goodluck

 

www.getfirefox.com

[endless12345]

how do you compressed dvd files??? .. so that i can put 2 or 3 movies in one dvd...

 

what program should i use??

 

how do you compressed dvd files??? .. so that i can put 2 or 3 movies in one dvd...

 

what program should i use??

 

you dont actually compress dvd files. you first rip them to a video format avi/mpeg etc.

then the avi/mpedg file should be much smaller (but near vcd quality) and that should be burned then into dvds. therefore, many vcd quality files could be burned into one dvd.

[b_9904]

im not quite sure but under the new developments of the law, the consent of the father to use his surname by the illegitimate child is not necessary as long as the child is recognized and filiation is established in the birth certificate. Just my opinion.

 

Ty po : )

[M16A2]

I am again in need of your sources with regards to the following:

 

Provide the rule in the manner of legal citation of the following, provide at least one example for each instance,

 

a. Essays or articles

 

b. Books and phamplets (all types and levels of books and phamplets that can be used)

 

c. Periodicals, articles, newspapers, speeches, letters, annotation, and interviews

 

d. Encyclopedias, looseleaf services, book reviews

 

e. Repeating citations (ito ba yung ibid or supra?)

 

Thanks

[bonito99]

@Mod note:

 

Hello.

 

I would suggest to post your inquiry at the " Schools of Law " Thread.

 

Thank you for your time.