This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-11-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In cases of pro-forma parties who are neither indispensable nor necessary, the general rule under Section 11, Rule 3 must be followed: such non-joinder is not a ground for dismissal. Hence, in a case concerning an action to recover a sum of money, we held that the failure to join the spouse in that case was not a jurisdictional defect.[26] The non-joinder of a spouse does not warrant dismissal as it is merely a formal requirement which may be cured by amendment.[27] | |||||
|
2005-08-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Basic is the rule that only properties belonging to the debtor can be attached, and an attachment and sale of properties belonging to a third party are void.[16] At the pith of the controversy, therefore, is the issue of ownership of the subject properties at the time of the levy thereof as the right of petitioner TMBC, as creditor, depends on whether such properties were still owned by its debtor, Ricardo, Sr., and not by Edmundo, who is concededly not a debtor of TMBC. If the properties were validly transferred to Edmundo before the levy thereof then cancellation of the annotation is in order. If, however, the sale was absolutely simulated and was entered into between uncle and nephew for the lone reason of removing the properties from the reach of TMBC, then the annotation should stay. | |||||