Facts:

In the case of Aldecoa & Co., in Liquidation vs. Pastor Navarro, Sheriff of the Province of Leyte, the petitioner, Aldecoa & Co., commenced an original action to prohibit the respondent, Sheriff Navarro, from taking possession of certain real and personal property. This property had been sold under an execution in favor of Aldecoa & Co., which was in liquidation at that time. The dispute originated from an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila, known as No. 6597, where Aldecoa & Co. obtained a judgment on January 12, 1910, against Pascual Veloso for the amount of P10,234.81. Following this judgment, an execution was issued directing the Sheriff of Leyte to levy on Veloso's properties. The Sheriff duly executed this order by selling Veloso’s properties as per the legal provisions. About two months after this sale, a deputy of Sheriff Navarro forcibly retook possession of some of the property that had been sold, claiming authority from Navarro and int

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case involves an original action filed by Aldecoa & Co. in liquidation, the petitioner, seeking to prevent the defendant from taking possession of certain described property (both real and personal).
• The contested property had previously been sold under an execution issued in connection with a judgment in a separate case pending in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila.

Prior Litigation and Judgment

• There was an earlier pending case (No. 6597) between Aldecoa & Co., in liquidation, and Pascual Veloso.
• The court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of P10,234.81 against Pascual Veloso.

Execution Process and Sale

• On January 12, 1910, an execution was issued on the said judgment and entrusted to the Sheriff of the Province of Leyte.
• The Sheriff's execution, allegedly carried out in conformity with the law, involved levying upon and subsequently selling the property of the debtor, Pascual Veloso, as detailed in the complaint (Exhibits A and B).
• The sale under the execution was regular and valid, with no indication of any irregularity in the transaction.

Possession and Subsequent Action

• Immediately following the sale, the Sheriff delivered possession of the property to the plaintiff, Aldecoa & Co. in liquidation.
• Approximately two months later, a deputy acting for the defendant, Pastor Navarro, claimed to be executing instructions and retook possession of part of the property allegedly for resale, an act that was met with protest by the plaintiff.
• No court order or legal authority was found in the record to justify the defendant’s attempt to retake possession and resell the property.

Plaintiff’s Interest and Improvements Made

• The plaintiff had acquired possession legally and had even made significant improvements to the property, incurring considerable costs.
• The unauthorized retaking of possession by the defendant was seen as a direct interference with the plaintiff’s lawful rights derived from the regular execution sale.

Issue:

Authority to Retake Possession

• Whether the defendant, by retaking possession of the property through his deputy, acted within any legal authority or under a court order.
• Whether the absence of any valid authority or court order rendered the defendant’s action unauthorized.

Validity and Effect of the Execution Sale

• Whether the sale of the property under the execution was in conformity with legal provisions, particularly given that it was executed by the duly appointed Sheriff of Leyte.
• Whether the purchaser (the plaintiff) acquired absolute rights, including possession, of the property at the time of sale and delivery.

Remedies and Relief

• Whether, in light of the unauthorized act of retaking the property, the plaintiff was entitled to seek a permanent injunction barring the defendant from further interference or resale of the property.
• Whether the temporary injunction initially granted should be made perpetual.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)