This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-09-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Considering the attendant circumstances, Atty. Escaño cannot validly invoke the ruling in Go v. Go.[25] In that case, the Court sustained the escrow order issued by the trial court to deposit the monthly rentals of the property subject therein pending the resolution of the main action for partition or until the question of co-ownership is finally determined. In upholding the propriety of such order, the Court held that the rental deposit was the most prudent way to preserve the rights of the contending parties pending the final determination of who was lawfully entitled thereto. | |||||