This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-10-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| A similar dearth of merit may be said of TCEI's claim that the subject properties were in custodia legis upon the issuance of the Stay Order and the approval of the rehabilitation plan fails to persuade. As early as 7 February 2002 or three months after the foreclosure sale on 7 November 2001, Metrobank acted well-within its rights in applying for a writ of possession, the issuance of which has consistently been held to be a ministerial function which cannot be hindered by an injunction or an action for the annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure itself.[41] While it is true that the function ceases to be ministerial where the property is in the possession of a third party claiming a right adverse to that of the judgment debtor,[42] the rehabilitation receiver's power to take possession, control and custody of TCEI's assets is far from adverse to the latter. A rehabilitation receiver is an officer of the court who is appointed for the protection of the interests of the corporate investors and creditors.[43] It has been ruled that there is nothing in the concept of corporate rehabilitation that would ipso facto deprive the officers of a debtor corporation of control over its business or properties.[44] | |||||