Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HENRY C. SEVESES v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 148444 2009-09-03	ASSOCIATED BANK v. SPS. RAFAEL AND MONALIZA PRONSTROLLER NACHURA, J.
That the Certificate of Title covering the subject property is in the name of the spouses Vaca is of no moment. It is noteworthy that a notice of lis pendens was timely annotated on petitioner's title. This was done prior to the sale of the property to the spouses Vaca, the cancellation of petitioner's title, and the issuance of the new Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the spouses. By virtue of the notice of lis pendens, the spouses Vaca are bound by the outcome of the litigation subject of the lis pendens. Their interest is subject to the incidents or results of the pending suit, and their Certificate of Title will afford them no special protection.[13]
	GR No. 102696* 2001-07-12	ALBERTO LOOYUKO v. CA KAPUNAN, J.
In the present case, the motions for intervention were filed after judgment had already been rendered, indeed when the case was already final and executory. Certainly, intervention can no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment.[15]
	GR No. 133576 2000-07-13	VIEWMASTER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. ALLEN C. ROXAS BUENA, J.
However, we deem it best to allude to the case of Aleria, Jr. vs. Velez[16] cited in the case of Seveses vs. Court of Appeals,[17] as these cases have discussed the issue when a judge must inhibit himself from a case.
	GR No. 133547 2000-02-10	HEIRS OF ANTONIO PAEL v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Furthermore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is justified by the fact that during the proceedings before the appellate court, the Register of Deeds irregularly issued a new title, TCT No. 186662, in favor of PFINA. The function and importance of a notice of lis pendens were lost on respondent trial judge and the Register of Deeds. As held in Seveses v. Court of Appeals, et al.:[55]