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 fortuitous
event 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 29 of the Republic Act No. 265, as amended known as the
Central Bank Act, provides that when a bank is forbidden to do business
in the Philippines and placed under receivership, the person designated
as receiver shall immediately take charge of the banks assets and
liabilities, as expeditiously 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, exercising all the powers
necessary 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
Central Bank, through the Monetary Board, determines whether to proceed
with the liquidation or reorganization of the financially distressed bank. A
receiver, who concurrently represents the bank, then takes control and
possession of its assets for the benefit of the banks creditors. A liquidator
meanwhile assumes the role of the receiver upon the determination by the
Monetary Board that the bank can no longer resume business. His task is to
dispose of all the assets of the bank and effect partial payments of the banks
obligations in accordance with legal priority. In both receivership and
liquidation proceedings, the bank retains its juridical personality
notwithstanding the closure of its business and may even be sued as its
corporate existence is assumed by the receiver or liquidator. The 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. SMART Communications vs Astorga

SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE

1. Lim vs Lim
2. People vs Manahan
3. Heirs of Hilario Ruiz vs vs Ruiz

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION

RULE 65
1.
2.
3.
4.

Wak wak country club vs CA

Sabitsana vs Mertegui
Almeida vs Bathala
Yasai vs Recto

RULE 66
1.
2.
3.
4.

Calleja vs Panday
Lokin, Jr vs COMELEC
Aratea vs COMELEC 2013
Malana vs Tappa

RULE 67
1. NPC vs CA and Pobre
2. Republic vs Andaya
3. Abad vs Philhomes Realty 2013

RULE 68
1. Goldenway vs Equitable Bank
2. Ramirez vs Manila Bank
3. Marquez vs Alindog

RULE 69
1. Balus vs Balus
2. Mangahas vs Brobio

RULE 70
1. Zacarias vs Anacay 2014
2. Ferrer vs Rabaca
3. CGR Corp vs Treynes

RULE 71
1. Sison vs Caoibes
DEAN RIANO:
1. Humbilla vs Matrix Finance 2015

CAUSE OF ACTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Aquino vs Quiazon 2015

Barazono vs RTC of Baguio Branch 61
Marilag vs Martinez 2015, July --- Splitting of Causes of Action
Manalang vs Bacani 2015, Jan --- Joinder of COA
Gomez vs Montalban 3/14/08
Supapo vs Sps. De Jesus 2015
Rivera vs Sps De Jesus 2015

PARTITION
1. Barrido vs Nonato 2014, October 14
2. Cabrera vs Francisco

QUIETING OF TITLE
1. Sabitsana vs Mertegui
2. Teodoro vs Francisco
3. Bautista vs Lindo 2014, March 10

CONSOLIDATION
1. Cruz vs Leis 327 SCRA