Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Oblicon Group 4

    Caricato da

    Yan Lean Dollison
    3 visualizzazioni1 pagina
    ART.1387, 2nd paragraph, says that even if the property sold is not the property involved in the litigation, one cannot sell his property. ART.1177 as to not prejudice the right of X since X is also another creditor.

    Descrizione originale:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formati disponibili

    DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    ART.1387, 2nd paragraph, says that even if the property sold is not the property involved in the litigation, one cannot sell his property. ART.1177 as to not prejudice the right of X since X is also another creditor.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Scarica in formato DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    3 visualizzazioni1 pagina

    Oblicon Group 4

    Caricato da

    Yan Lean Dollison
    ART.1387, 2nd paragraph, says that even if the property sold is not the property involved in the litigation, one cannot sell his property. ART.1177 as to not prejudice the right of X since X is also another creditor.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Scarica in formato DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 1

    OBLICON GROUP 4 Situation: 1. A brought an action against B, his debtor. A won. After judgement, B sold his property to C.

    X, another creditor of B wants to rescind the sale to C.Both C and B claim that X does not have the right to interfere because after all, it was A not X who had won a judgement against B. Are C and B justified? Answer: C and B are not justified.according to ART.1387, 2nd paragraph. It is immaterial because even if the property sold is not the property involved in the litigation, one cannot sell his property. And ART.1177 as to not prejudice the right of X since X is also another creditor.

    2. As house at levereza street was attached by the court.A sold his house at 22 san Miguel street to B.after the attachementon the first house had been made. C, a creditor of A,now says that the sale is presumed fraudulent.A, counters by saying that there is no such presumption because after all,the house which had been attached was not the one sold to B.Is A justified?

    Answer: No,A is not justified. according to ART.1387 2nd paragraph. The law says that the attachment need not to be the property alienated.

    Potrebbero piacerti anche