This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-07-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Lastly, it is worthy to note that the effects of the foreclosure of the subject lot is in fact still contentious considering that as a purchaser in the public sale, PNB was only substituted to and acquired the right, title, interest and claim of the mortgagor to the property as of the time of the levy.[44] There being already a final judgment reconveying the subject lot to Spouses Marañon and declaring as null and void Emilie's purported claim of ownership, the legal consequences of the foreclosure sale, expiration of the redemption period and even the consolidation of the subject lot's title in PNB's name shall be subjected to such final judgment. This is the clear import of the ruling in Unionbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals:[45] | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As mentioned above, the general rule is, where a party appears by attorney in an action or proceeding in a court of record, all notices required to be given therein must be given to the attorney of record; and service of the court's order upon any person other than the counsel of record is not legally effective and binding upon the party, nor may it start the corresponding reglementary period for the subsequent procedural steps that may be taken by the attorney.[34] Notice should be made upon the counsel of record at his exact given address,[35] to which notice of all kinds emanating from the court should be sent in the absence of a proper and adequate notice to the court of a change of address.[36] | |||||