Case Digest (G.R. No. 11476)
Facts:
The case of Magdaleno Agatep vs. Juan Taguinod, Vicente De Leon, and Miguel Lasam was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 15, 1917. The plaintiff, Magdaleno Agatep, filed a complaint against the defendants, who included Juan Taguinod, the Deputy Sheriff of Cagayan, Vicente De Leon, the Sheriff of Cagayan, and Miguel Lasam. The case arose from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, which dismissed Agatep's complaint on the merits. The plaintiff sought to recover possession of three head of cattle that had been seized by the sheriff under an execution order issued due to a judgment against him. Agatep contended that the cattle were exempt from levy and sale under execution according to paragraph 3 of section 452 of the Code of Civil Procedure. During the trial, Agatep testified that he owned no property other than the three cattle, which he used to support his family. The oldest was a cow, four years old, which he milked and sold, whi...
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.