Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CESAR V. MADRIAGA v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 191540 2015-01-21	SPS. JOSE O. GATUSLAO v. LEO RAY V. YANSON DEL CASTILLO, J.
Nevertheless, where the extrajudicially foreclosed real property is in the possession of a third party who is holding the same adversely to the judgment debtor or mortgagor, the RTC's duty to issue a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser of said real property ceases to be ministerial and, as such, may no longer proceed ex parte.[34] In such a case, the trial court must order a hearing to determine the nature of the adverse possession.[35] For this exception to apply, however, it is not enough that the property is in the possession of a third party, the property must also be held by the third party adversely to the judgment debtor or mortgagor,[36] such as a co-owner, agricultural tenant or usufructuary.[37]
	GR Nos. 197942-43 2014-03-26	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. THUNDERBIRD PILIPINAS HOTELS REYES, J.
With the parties agreeing to end their differences before trial proper, the instant petitions have ceased to present a justiciable controversy for us to resolve.[56] However, as PAGCOR itself has importuned, there are procedural as well as substantive issues of such importance which it hopes this Court would help clarify for the guidance of future litigants. So shall We proceed.
	GR No. 199747 2013-04-03	TEODORO DARCEN v. V. R. GONZALES CREDIT ENTERPRISES REYES, J.
As the petitioners have themselves admitted in their Petition,[59] the RTC-Branch 81, issued a Writ of Possession[60] dated April 18, 2011, and on October 4, 2011 they were physically evicted from the disputed lots by the Sheriff, and the respondent company was placed in possession thereof, per the Sheriff's report dated October 4, 2011.[61] With the writ of possession having been served and fully satisfied, the instant petition has ceased to present a justiciable controversy for this Court to resolve, and a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value,[62] in view of the pendency in the CA of the petitioners' appeal from the decision in Civil Case No. 333-M-2007 on the question of the ownership of the subject mortgaged lots, and thus of the rightful possession thereover. As we have reiterated in Madriaga, Jr. v. China Banking Corporation:[63]