Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR NOS. 150773 & 153599 2005-09-30	SPS. DAVID B. CARPO AND RECHILDA S. CARPO v. ELEANOR CHUA TINGA, J.
Thus, we also affirm the Court of Appeals' ruling to set aside the RTC orders enjoining the enforcement of the writ of possession.[27] The purchaser in a foreclosure sale is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of possession, regardless of whether or not there is a pending suit for annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure proceedings. An injunction to prohibit the issuance or enforcement of the writ is entirely out of place.[28]
	GR NO. 144892 2005-09-23	SPS. CARLOS J. SUNTAY AND ROSARIO R. SUNTAY v. EUGENIA D. GOCOLAY
Finally. The CA decision settled this fact: Gocolay was issued CCT No. 26474 to which the annotations of the notice of levy and certificate of sale in favor of the spouses Suntay had been transferred from CCT Nos. 15802 and 15813. Gocolay's claim that the title or ownership of Unit G and its parking slots had been allegedly and wrongfully vested on petitioners was a collateral attack on such title which must be appropriately addressed in a direct proceeding.[22] The HLURB passed upon the issue of title which it could not do and should not have done in view of its limited jurisdiction under PD 957 and PD 1344.