This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Corollary to this is the rule that a levy of a judgment debtor creates a lien, which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment of the levy itself.[13] Prior registration of the lien creates a preference, since the act of registration is the operative act to convey and affect the land.[14] Jurisprudence dictates that the said lien continues until the debt is paid, or the sale is had under an execution issued on the judgment or until the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment is discharged or vacated in the same manner provided by law. Under no law, not even P.D. No. 1529, is it stated that an attachment shall be discharged upon sale of the property other than under execution.[15] | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's attempt to put respondent in estoppel must be struck down. "In estoppel, a person, who by his act or conduct has induced another to act in a particular manner, is barred from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that thereby causes loss or injury to another."[54] No such inconsistency is present here. From the very start, respondent was already asking the courts to enforce all its claims, pursuant to the Agreement. It has not shown any act or conduct that would leads us to believe that by accepting petitioner's partial payment, it has dropped all claims to which it is entitled. | |||||
|
2003-02-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| A person, who by his deed or conduct has induced another to act in a particular manner, is barred from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that thereby causes loss or injury to another.[10] | |||||