Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE UNCHUAN v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 183658 2013-04-10	ROYAL SAVINGS BANK v. FERNANDO ASIA SERENO, C.J.
The evident purpose underlying P.D. 385 is sufficiently served by allowing foreclosure proceedings initiated by GFIs to continue until a judgment therein becomes final and executory, without a restraining order, temporary or permanent injunction against it being issued. But if a parcel of land is occupied by a party other than the judgment debtor, the proper procedure is for the court to order a hearing to determine the nature of said adverse possession before it issues a writ of possession.[22] This is because a third party, who is not privy to the debtor, is protected by the law. Such third party may be ejected from the premises only after he has been given an opportunity to be heard, to comply with the time-honored principle of due process. [23]
	GR No. 176019 2011-01-12	BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. GOLDEN POWER DIESEL SALES CENTER CARPIO, J.
Therefore, in an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property, when the foreclosed property is in the possession of a third party holding the same adversely to the judgment obligor, the issuance by the trial court of a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser of said real property ceases to be ministerial and may no longer be done ex parte.[19] The procedure is for the trial court to order a hearing to determine the nature of the adverse possession.[20] For the exception to apply, however, the property need not only be possessed by a third party, but also held by the third party adversely to the judgment obligor.
	GR Nos. 182136-37 2008-08-29	BON-MAR REALTY YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The above provision bestows upon third parties claiming rights to property under execution the right to protect their interests by interposing a third-party claim in the same case, or by instituting a separate reivindicatory action against the executing creditor.[34] The third-party claim that is heard in the same case may be tried at length or summarily. Proceedings to resolve the possession of third-party claimants may proceed independently of the action which said claimants may bring to enforce or protect their claim of ownership over the property.[35]