Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF FRANCISCA MEDRANO v. ESTANISLAO DE VERA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 186610 2013-07-29	POLICE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT DIMAPINTO MACAWADIB v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTORATE FOR PERSONNEL PERALTA, J.
As to the second and last assigned errors, suffice it to say that considering that the assailed decision of the RTC is null and void, the same could not have attained finality. Settled is the rule that a void judgment cannot attain finality and its execution has no basis in law.[20]
	GR No. 182902 2011-10-05	VIRRA MALL TENANTS ASSOCIATION v. VIRRA MALL GREENHILLS ASSOCIATION SERENO, J.
Lastly, allowing VMTA to intervene in Civil Case No. 69312 finds support in Heirs of Medrano v. De Vera,[27] to wit: The purpose of intervention is to enable a stranger to an action to become a party in order for him to protect his interest and for the court to settle all conflicting claims. Intervention is allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits more than on due process considerations.[28]
	GR No. 176008 2011-08-10	METROPOLITAN BANK v. INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK PERALTA, J.
The purpose of intervention is to enable a stranger to an action to become a party in order for him to protect his interest and for the court to settle all conflicting claims.[34] Intervention is allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits more than on due process considerations.[35] To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, two requisites must concur: (1) the movant has a legal interest on the matter in litigation; and (2) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties, nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding.[36]