This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-10-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A chattel mortgagee, unlike a pledgee, need not be in, nor entitled to, the possession of the property, unless and until the mortgagor defaults and the mortgagee thereupon seeks to foreclose thereon. Since the mortgagee's right of possession is conditioned upon the actual default which itself may be controverted, the inclusion of other parties, like the debtor or the mortgagor himself, may be required in order to allow a full and conclusive determination of the case. When the mortgagee seeks a replevin in order to effect the eventual foreclosure of the mortgage, it is not only the existence of, but also the mortgagor's default on, the chattel mortgage that, among other things, can properly uphold the right to replevy the property. The burden to establish a valid justification for that action lies with the plaintiff [-mortgagee]. An adverse possessor, who is not the mortgagor, cannot just be deprived of his possession, let alone be bound by the terms of the chattel mortgage contract, simply because the mortgagee brings up an action for replevin.[20] (Emphasis added) | |||||
|
2008-02-11 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Replevin, broadly understood, is both a form of principal remedy and a provisional relief. It may refer either to the action itself, i.e., to regain the possession of personal chattels being wrongfully detained from the plaintiff by another, or to the provisional remedy that would allow the plaintiff to retain the thing during the pendency of the action and hold it pendente lite.[5] | |||||
|
2007-09-21 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Petitioner contends that Section 9 of Rule 60 of the 1997 Rules of Court which reads: Sec. 9. Judgment. After trial of the issues, the court shall determine who has the right of possession to and the value of the property and shall render judgment in the alternative for the delivery thereof to the party entitled to the same, or for its value in case delivery cannot be made, and also for such damages as either party may prove, with costs, does not authorize the court to render judgment on the deficiency after foreclosure, citing BA Finance Corp. v. CA.[29] | |||||
|
2004-07-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| An indispensable party is a party who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest.[55] A person is not an indispensable party if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other parties, so that he will not necessarily be injuriously affected by a decree that does complete justice between the other parties.[56] He is also not indispensable if his presence would merely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to the action or will simply avoid multiple litigations.[57] | |||||
|
2003-07-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "Sec. 8. Cross-claim. - A cross claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant." For purposes of a ruling on the cross-claim, PAL is an indispensable party. In BA Finance Corporation v. CA,[52] the Court stated:"x x x. An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court's action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party's interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his absence there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. | |||||