cases remedial

7/25/2019 Cases Remedial

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cases-remedial 1/4

RECEIVERSHIP

1. Larrobis vs Veterans Bank

Whether or not the period within which the respondent bank was placed

under receivership and liquidation proceedings may be considered a fortuitousevent which interrupted the running of the prescriptive period in bringing actions.

Negative.

While it is true that foreclosure falls within the broad definition of doing

business, it should not be considered included, however, in the acts

prohibited whenever banks are prohibited from doing business during

receivership and liquidation proceedings.

Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank vs. Monetary Board, Central Bank of the Philippines:

Section 2 of the !epublic "ct No. 2#$, as amended known as the

%entral &ank "ct, provides that when a bank is forbidden to do business

in the 'hilippines and placed under receivership, the person designated

as receiver shall immediately take charge of the banks assets and

liabilities, as epeditiously as possible, collect and gather all the assets

and administer the same for the benefit of its creditors, and represent

the bank personally or through counsel as he may retain in all actions

or proceedings for or against the institution, e(ercising all the powersnecessary for these purposes including, but not limited to, bringing and

foreclosing mortgages in the name of the bank.

When a bank is declared insolvent and placed under receivership, the

%entral &ank, through the )onetary &oard, determines whether to proceed

with the liquidation or reorgani*ation of the financially distressed bank. "

receiver, who concurrently represents the bank, then takes control and

possession of its assets for the benefit of the banks creditors. " liquidator

meanwhile assumes the role of the receiver upon the determination by the

)onetary &oard that the bank can no longer resume business. +is task is to

dispose of all the assets of the bank and effect partial payments of the banks

obligations in accordance with legal priority. n both receivership and

liquidation proceedings, the bank retains its -uridical personality

notwithstanding the closure of its business and may even be sued as its

corporate e(istence is assumed by the receiver or liquidator. he receiver or



liquidator meanwhile acts not only for the benefit of the bank, but for its

creditors as well.

2. Koruga vs Arsenas

The Monetary Board and not the RTC, exercises exclusive jurisdiction over

proceedings for receivership of banks.

REPLEVIN

1. Hao vs Andres

2. SAR! Co""uni#ations vs Astorga

S$PP%R! PEN&EN!E LI!E

1. Li" vs Li"

2. Peo'(e vs ana)an*. Heirs o+ Hi(ario Rui, vs vs Rui,

SPECIAL CIVIL AC!I%N

R$LE -

1. /ak 0ak #ountr #(ub vs CA

2. Sabitsana vs ertegui

*. A("eida vs Bat)a(a

. 3asai vs Re#to

R$LE --

1. Ca((e4a vs Panda

2. Lokin5 6r vs C%ELEC

*. Aratea vs C%ELEC 271*

. a(ana vs !a''a



R$LE -8

1. NPC vs CA and Pobre

2. Re'ub(i# vs Andaa

*. Abad vs P)i()o"es Rea(t 271*

R$LE -9

1. :o(den0a vs E;uitab(e Bank

2. Ra"ire, vs ani(a Bank

*. ar;ue, vs A(indog

R$LE -<

1. Ba(us vs Ba(us2. anga)as vs Brobio

R$LE 87

1. =a#arias vs Ana#a 271

2. >errer vs Raba#a

*. C:R Cor' vs !renes

R$LE 81

1. Sison vs Caoibes

&EAN RIAN%?

1. Hu"bi((a vs atri@ >inan#e 271

CA$SE %> AC!I%N

1. A;uino vs uia,on 271

2. Bara,ono vs R!C o+ Baguio Bran#) -1

*. ari(ag vs artine, 2715 6u( S'(itting o+ Causes o+ A#tion

. ana(ang vs Ba#ani 2715 6an 6oinder o+ C%A

. :o"e, vs onta(ban *179

-. Su'a'o vs S's. &e 6esus 271

8. Rivera vs S's &e 6esus 271



PAR!I!I%N

1. Barrido vs Nonato 2715 %#tober 1

2. Cabrera vs >ran#is#o

$IE!IN: %> !I!LE

1. Sabitsana vs ertegui

2. !eodoro vs >ran#is#o

*. Bautista vs Lindo 2715 ar#) 17

C%NS%LI&A!I%N

1. Cru, vs Leis *28 SCRA

cases remedial

Documents