Title
Agatep vs. Taguinod
Case
G.R. No. 11476
Decision Date
Mar 15, 1917
Plaintiff appealed dismissal of complaint seeking recovery of cattle seized under execution; SC ruled cattle not exempt as not "necessarily used in ordinary occupation."
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 11476)

Facts:

Background of the Case:

  • The plaintiff, Magdaleno Agatep, appealed a judgment from the Court of First Instance of Cagayan dismissing his complaint. The case involved the recovery of three head of cattle (or their value) seized by the sheriff under an execution issued against Agatep based on a judgment obtained against him.

Ownership and Use of the Cattle:

  • Agatep testified that he owned no other property except the three head of cattle, which he used to maintain his family. The cattle consisted of:
    • A 4-year-old cow that he milked and sold the milk for 20 to 30 centavos per day.
    • A heifer less than 2 years old that did not produce milk.
    • A 6-month-old bull calf.
  • Agatep stated that he sometimes sold the milk to three named individuals when they were present, but when they were absent, his family consumed the milk. He also mentioned that most people in his neighborhood did not care for milk.

Agatep’s Occupations:

  • During the tobacco season (August to October), Agatep worked as a tobacco buyer for Chinese merchants, earning ₱15 per month.
  • For the rest of the year, he worked as a laborer or farmer for others.
  • Agatep intended to keep the heifer until it began producing milk, which he planned to sell to support his family.

Trial Court’s Findings:

  • The trial court found that Agatep had two ordinary occupations: tobacco buyer during the tobacco season and farm laborer during the rest of the year.
  • The court ruled that the occasional sale of milk did not constitute an ordinary occupation, even though the proceeds were used to maintain his family.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Exemption Requirements for Cattle:

    • Under paragraph 3 of section 452 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cattle are exempt from attachment and execution only if they are "necessarily used by [the debtor] in his ordinary occupation."
    • The exemption does not apply based on the necessity of the cattle for the maintenance of the debtor’s family. Provisions for family maintenance are covered under a different paragraph (paragraph 6) of the same section.
  2. Burden of Proof:

    • The burden of proving entitlement to the exemption lies with the debtor. Agatep failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the cattle were necessary for his ordinary occupation.
    • The Court found that Agatep’s primary occupations were as a tobacco buyer and farm laborer, and the cattle were not necessary for these occupations.
  3. Occasional Sale of Milk:

    • The occasional sale of milk did not establish that the cattle were used in Agatep’s ordinary occupation. The Court agreed with the trial court that this activity did not constitute an ordinary occupation.
  4. Dissenting Opinion:

    • Justice Trent dissented but did not provide a detailed explanation in the decision.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that Agatep failed to meet the legal requirements for exemption of the cattle from execution. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, with costs against Agatep.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.