This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-10-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The same issue had been raised in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Icot,[26] Development Bank of the Philippines v. Prime Neighborhood Association,[27] Dayot v. Shell Chemical Company (Phils.), Inc.,[28] and Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals,[29] and we uniformly held that the obligation of the court to issue an ex parte writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale ceases to be ministerial once it appears that there is a third party in possession of the property who is claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor. | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| This was reiterated in Dayot v. Shell Chemical Company (Phils.), Inc.[36] | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[20] | |||||