Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Question
1 Approved Answer
Fidela Legaspi v. Court of Appeals, et al. L-39877, Feb. 20, 1976 FACTS: An urban lot, owned by a certain Pestejos, was sold to a
Fidela Legaspi v. Court of Appeals, et al. L-39877, Feb. 20, 1976 FACTS: An urban lot, owned by a certain Pestejos, was sold to a certain Aguilar, an adjacent lot owner, although another adjoining lot owner, Legaspi, had offered to buy the same lot. Legaspi was interested in the purchase of Pestejos lot, because a portion of her (Legaspis) house was standing on a part of Pestejos lot. After the sale to Aguilar, Legaspi tried to redeem the lot by offering a reimbursement of the purchase price. The offer was refused. Issue: Should redemption by Legaspi be allowed?
Fidela Legaspi v. Court of Appeals, et al.
L-39877, Feb. 20, 1976
FACTS: An urban lot, owned by a certain Pestejos, was sold to a certain Aguilar, an adjacent lot owner, although another adjoining lot owner, Legaspi, had offered to buy the same lot. Legaspi was interested in the purchase of Pestejos lot, because a portion of her (Legaspis) house was standing on a part of Pestejos lot. After the sale to Aguilar, Legaspi tried to redeem the lot by offering a reimbursement of the purchase price. The offer was refused.
Issue: Should redemption by Legaspi be allowed?
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started
Guide To Audit Data Analytics
Authors: AICPA
1st Edition
1945498641, 978-1945498640
