This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the case at bench, the notice of levy covering the subject property was annotated in the entry book of the ROD QC prior to the issuance of a TCT in the name of the Saberons. Clearly, the Ventanillas' levy was placed on record prior to the sale. This shows the superiority and preference in rights of the Ventanillas over the property as against the Saberons. In AFP, the Court upheld the registration of the levy on attachment in the primary entry book as a senior encumbrance despite the mistake of the ROD, the Court must, a fortiori, sustain the notice of levy registered by the Ventanillas notwithstanding the nonfeasance of ROD Cleofe. Again, the prevailing rule is that there is effective registration once the registrant has fulfilled all that is needed of him for purposes of entry and annotation, so that what is left to be accomplished lies solely on the Register of Deeds.[20] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As regards the first consequence, this Court has applied the same in several cases. Thus, in the old cases of Levin v. Bass,[22] Potenciano v. Dineros,[23] and Development Bank of the Philippines v. Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija,[24] as well as in the fairly recent cases of Autocorp Group v. Court of Appeals,[25] Armed Forces and Police Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. Santiago,[26] and National Housing Authority v. Basa, Jr.,[27] we upheld the entry of instruments in the Primary Entry Book to be equivalent to registration despite even the failure to annotate said instruments in the corresponding certificates of title. | |||||
|
2012-01-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A reading of respondents' verification reveals that they complied with the abovequoted procedural rule. Respondents confirmed that they had read the allegations in the Complaint which were true and correct based on their personal knowledge. The addition of the words "to the best" before the phrase "of our own personal knowledge" did not violate the requirement under Section 4, Rule 7, it being sufficient that the respondents declared that the allegations in the complaint are true and correct based on their personal knowledge.[20] | |||||
|
2010-11-22 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is a time-honored legal precept that after the consolidation of titles in the buyer's name, for failure of the mortgagor to redeem, entitlement to a writ of possession becomes a matter of right.[27] As the confirmed owner, the purchaser's right to possession becomes absolute.[28] There is even no need for him to post a bond,[29] and it is the ministerial duty of the courts to issue the same upon proper application and proof of title.[30] To accentuate the writ's ministerial character, the Court has consistently disallowed injunction to prohibit its issuance despite a pending action for annulment of mortgage or the foreclosure itself.[31] | |||||