This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-02-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In a resolution dated 21 October 1996, the trial court ruled for the petitioner.[9] Citing Manliguez v. Court of Appeals[10] and Santos v. Bayhon,[11] it held that the levy of the property by virtue of attachment is lawful only when the levied property indubitably belongs to the defendant. Applying the rulings in the cited cases, it opined that although defendant Lorenzo Uy remained the registered owner of the property attached, yet the fact was that he was no longer the owner thereof as it was already sold earlier to petitioner, hence, the writ of attachment was unlawful. | |||||