This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Facts: Isidra Remolado, a resident of Rizal, owned a lot with a bungalow which was leased to Beatriz Cabagnot. The said lot is located at Molave St., United Paranaque, Rizal. In 1966 she mortgaged the lot to the Rural Bank of Paranaque as security for a loan of P15,000. She paid the loan. On April 17, 1971 she again mortgaged it to the bank. She failed to pay the loan amounting to P18,000. The bank foreclosed the mortgage on July 21, 1972 and bought the lot at the foreclosure sale at P22,192.70. The lot had a one year period of redemption which was to expire on August 21, 1973. On August 8 ,1973 the bank advised her that she has up to August 23 to redeem the property with the price amounting to P 25,491.96. No redemption was made. The bank consolidated its ownership of the property and was issued the title of the land on September 5. However, on September 24 the bank, again, extended the deadline to October 31, without specifying the repurchase price. On October 26, Remolado and her daughter promised to pay the bank P33,000 on October 31. She failed to meet the deadline and only paid the bank on November 5. The amount was returned to her the following day for the assistant manager did not intend to receive the money for the bank was no longer willing to allow the repurchase. On that day, November 6, she filed an action to compel the bank to return the property to her for P25,491.96 plus interest and other charges and pay P35,000 as damages. The repurchase price was not consigned. A notice of lis pendens was registered. On November 15, the bank sold the property to Pilar Aysip for P50,000, along with the new title issued to Aysip with an annotation of lis pendens. The trial court ordered the bank to return the property to Remolado upon payment of P25,491.96 plus interest and other bank charges and P15,000 for damages. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. Issue: Whether or not the property may be returned to Remolado even though there was no binding agreement for its repurchase. Held: No. The Appellate Court's judgment is reversed and set aside. The complaint and counterclaim are dismissed and the notice of lis pendens is cancelled. There was no binding agreement for its repurchase. Remolado had no cause of action because she did not repurchase the property on or before October 31, 1971. As a rule, equity follows the law. There may be a natural obligation (Art. 1423), but if there is no enforceable legal duty, the action must fail although the disadvantaged party deserves commiseration or sympathy. The bank acted within its legal rights when it refused to give Remolado any extension to repurchase after October 31, 1973.