This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-03-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In this case, we find that petitioners cannot be considered as third parties because they are not claiming a right adverse to the judgment debtor. Petitioner-teachers and students did not claim ownership of the properties, but merely averred actual "physical possession of the subject school premises".[12] Petitioner-teachers' possession of the said premises was based on the employment contracts they have with the school. As regards the petitioner-students, Alcuaz v. Philippine School of Business Administration[13] and Non v. Dames II[14] characterized the school-student relationship as contractual in nature. As such, it would be specious to conclude that the teachers and students hold the subject premises independent of or adverse to SMCA. In fact, their interest over the school premises is necessarily inferior to that of the school. Besides, their contracts are with the school and do not attach to the school premises. Moreover, the foreclosure of the current school premises does not prevent the SMCA from continuing its operations elsewhere. | |||||