Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GOTESCO TYAN MING DEVELOPMENT

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 141809 2013-04-08	JOSEFINA F. INGLES v. ESTRELLA T. ESTRADA PEREZ, J.
Amplifying further on Sps. De Vera is the case of Philippine National Bank v. Gotesco Tyan Ming Development, Inc.[150] In Philippine National Bank, this Court held that consolidation of an action for annulment of extrajudicial sale and a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession should not be allowed when doing so would actually lead to more delay in the proceedings and thus "defeat the very rationale of consolidation."[151] In the same case, this Court even ordered the separation of the then already consolidated action for the annulment of extrajudicial sale and petition for the issuance of a writ of possession.[152]
	GR No. 193065 2012-02-27	DEUTSCHE BANK AG v. CA MENDOZA, J.
Likewise, in Philippine National Bank v. Tyan Ming Development, Inc.[32] the non-consolidation of PNB's petition for a writ of possession and GOTESCO's complaint for annulment of foreclosure proceeding was upheld for defeating the very purpose of consolidation, thus: The record shows that PNB's petition was filed on May 26, 2006, and remains pending after three (3) years, despite the summary nature of the petition. Obviously, the consolidation only delayed the issuance of the desired writ of possession. Further, it prejudiced PNB's right to take immediate possession of the property and gave GOTESCO undue advantage, for GOTESCO continues to possess the property during the pendency of the consolidated cases, despite the fact that title to the property is no longer in its name.
	GR No. 152375 2011-12-13	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) BRION, J.
On December 13, 1996, the Sandiganbayan resolved the Urgent Petition by granting authority to the PCGG (i) "to cause the holding of a special stockholders' meeting of ETPI for the sole purpose of increasing ETPI's authorized capital stock" and (ii) "to vote therein the sequestered Class 'A' shares of stock."[22] Thus, a special stockholders meeting was held, as previously scheduled, on March 17, 1997 and the increase in ETPI's authorized capital stock was "unanimously approved."[23] From this ruling, Africa went to this Court via a petition for certiorari[24] docketed as G.R. No. 147214 (Africa's petition).