Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. MARIA LETICIA FERNANDEZ

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 172206 2013-07-03	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ PERALTA, J.
At the outset, the Court must clarify that a petition for review on certiorari is not the proper remedy to question the CA Resolution dated April 7, 2006 granting the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and denying petitioner's motion for intervention. Said Resolution did not completely dispose of the case on the merits, hence, it is merely an interlocutory order. As such, Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that no appeal may be taken therefrom. However, where the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court allows certiorari as a mode of redress.[5]
	GR No. 174788 2013-04-11	SPECIAL AUDIT TEAM v. CA SERENO, C.J.
For the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to be proper, it must be shown that the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion. In this case, respondents failed to show that they have a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right. (Emphasis supplied)[77]
	GR No. 165950 2010-08-08	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. OJ-MARK TRADING VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the case at bar, respondents failed to show that they have a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right. On the face of their clear admission that they were unable to settle their obligations which were secured by the mortgage, petitioner has a clear right to foreclose the mortgage.[25] Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of a mortgage indebtedness.[26] In a real estate mortgage when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold with the view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the obligation.[27]
	GR No. 165950 2010-08-08	EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. OJ-MARK TRADING VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the case at bar, respondents failed to show that they have a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of the said right. On the face of their clear admission that they were unable to settle their obligations which were secured by the mortgage, petitioner has a clear right to foreclose the mortgage.[25] Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of a mortgage indebtedness.[26] In a real estate mortgage when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold with the view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the obligation.[27]
	GR No. 114243 2000-02-23	SPS. ISAGANI MIRANDA AND MIGUELA JOGUILON v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
In declaring the judgment in Civil Case No. 63117 null and void, the appellate court found from the Sheriff's Return of Service,[8] that summons was served on the spouses Java by substituted service without effort at personal service. The court a quo held that the said service was invalid and the lower court never acquired jurisdiction over the persons of defendants (private respondents herein) in Civil Case No. 63117, thus, the execution sale of the "Thames" vehicle, as well as the sale of Lot 8015 to LMC, and the subsequent sale by the latter to petitioners were null and void.
	GR No. 114243 2000-02-23	SPS. ISAGANI MIRANDA AND MIGUELA JOGUILON v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
For want of proper service of summons upon defendants, the trial court in Civil Case No. 63117 never acquired jurisdiction over the former and hence, could not render valid judgment over their persons. Hence, the execution sales of the "Thames" vehicle and Lot 8015, pursuant to said void judgment, are void ab initio. A final judgment may be annulled upon either of two grounds: (1) extrinsic fraud, and (2) lack of jurisdiction.[19] In the present case, the trial court did not have jurisdiction. No reversible error was thus committed by the Court of Appeals in annulling the judgment in Civil Case No. 63117 for absence of jurisdiction on the part of the court which rendered the same.