This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The fact that these properties were mortgaged to secure corporate debts is of no moment. A mortgage is an accessory undertaking to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation.[15] In a third-party mortgage, the mortgaged property stands as security for the loan obtained by the principal debtor; but until the mortgaged property is foreclosed, ownership thereof remains with the third-party mortgagor. | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, it is equally settled that possession is an essential attribute of ownership.[23] Where the ownership of a parcel of land was decreed in the judgment, the delivery of the possession of the land should be considered included in the decision, it appearing that the defeated party's claim to the possession thereof is based on his claim of ownership.[24] Furthermore, adjudication of ownership would include the delivery of possession if the defeated party has not shown any right to possess the land independently of his claim of ownership which was rejected.[25] This is precisely what happened in the present case. This Court had already declared the disputed property as owned by the State and that De Leon does not have any right to possess the land independent of his claim of ownership. | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The records show that all the real estate and chattel mortgages were registered with the Register of Deeds of Bago City, Negros Occidental, and annotated at the back of the mortgaged titles. Thus, petitioner had ample security to protect its interest. As correctly held by the appellate court, the lessor's nonconformity to the Mortgage Contract would not cause petitioner any undue prejudice or disadvantage, because the registration and the annotation were considered sufficient notice to third parties that the property was subject to an encumbrance.[9] | |||||