This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The above affidavit and the allegations of the complaint are bereft of specific and definite allegations of fraud against Equitable that would justify the attachment of its properties. In fact, SSPI admits its uncertainty whether Equitable's participation in the transactions involved fraud or was a result of its negligence. Despite such uncertainty with respect to Equitable's participation, SSPI applied for and obtained a preliminary attachment of Equitable's properties on the ground of fraud. We believe that such preliminary attachment was wrongful. "[A] writ of preliminary attachment is too harsh a provisional remedy to be issued based on mere abstractions of fraud. Rather, the rules require that for the writ to issue, there must be a recitation of clear and concrete factual circumstances manifesting that the debtor practiced fraud upon the creditor at the time of the execution of their agreement in that said debtor had a preconceived plan or intention not to pay the creditor."[74] No proof was adduced tending to show that Equitable had a preconceived plan not to pay SSPI or had knowingly participated in Uy's scheme. | |||||
|
2011-04-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The rule is that a mortgage-creditor has a single cause of action against a mortgagor-debtor, that is, to recover the debt.[10] The mortgage-creditor has the option of either filing a personal action for collection of sum of money or instituting a real action to foreclose on the mortgage security.[11] An election of the first bars recourse to the second, otherwise there would be multiplicity of suits in which the debtor would be tossed from one venue to another depending on the location of the mortgaged properties and the residence of the parties.[12] | |||||