This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-18 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Conformably, it is the policy of Act No. 1956 to place all the assets and liabilities of the insolvent debtor completely within the jurisdiction and control of the insolvency court without the intervention of any other court in the insolvent debtor's concerns or in the administration of the estate.[72] It was considered to be of prime importance that the insolvency proceedings follow their course as speedily as possible in order that a discharge, if the insolvent debtor is entitled to it, should be decreed without unreasonable delay. "Proceedings of [this] nature cannot proceed properly or with due dispatch unless they are controlled absolutely by the court having charge thereof."[73] | |||||
|
2015-03-18 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| With the declaration of insolvency of the debtor, insolvency courts "obtain full and complete jurisdiction over all property of the insolvent and of all claims by and against [it.]"[94] It follows that the insolvency court has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the property of the insolvent.[95] Consequently, after the mortgagor-debtor has been declared insolvent and the insolvency court has acquired control of his estate, a mortgagee may not, without the permission of the insolvency court, institute proceedings to enforce its lien. In so doing, it would interfere with the insolvency court's possession and orderly administration of the insolvent's properties.[96] | |||||