Title
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Green
Case
G.R. No. 24127
Decision Date
Nov 23, 1925
Bank of the Philippine Islands sued Benjamin Green for unpaid promissory notes. Trial court ordered repayment; execution writ for foreclosure was void as judgment was monetary, not foreclosure. Supreme Court reversed sale, allowed new writ.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 24127)

Facts:

Background of the Case

The Bank of the Philippine Islands (plaintiff) filed a case against Benjamin A. Green (defendant) in the Court of First Instance of Manila to foreclose a mortgage and recover amounts due on two promissory notes. The defendant filed a general denial, and the case proceeded to trial.

Judgment of the Trial Court

The trial court rendered a judgment ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P57,900, after deducting P62.24, with 12% annual interest from August 9, 1921, plus 10% of the principal as attorney's fees and court costs. The defendant attempted to appeal this judgment, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on September 2, 1924, making the judgment final.

Execution Issued

On November 20, 1924, the trial court issued a writ titled "Execution Foreclosing Mortgage". The writ ordered the sheriff to sell the defendant's property at public auction to satisfy the judgment. The property was sold to the plaintiff for P10,000 on December 29, 1924. The plaintiff petitioned the court to confirm the sale, which the defendant opposed.

Defendant's Arguments

The defendant raised three main arguments on appeal:

  1. The writ of execution was null and void.
  2. The issuance of the writ was premature, irregular, and insufficient.
  3. The sale price of the property was inadequate.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Execution Must Conform to Judgment: An execution must substantially conform to the judgment on which it is based. In this case, the judgment was for a money judgment, but the writ of execution was titled and structured as a foreclosure of mortgage, which was inconsistent with the judgment.

  2. Invalidity of the Writ: The writ of execution was invalid because it exceeded the scope of the judgment and attempted to enforce a remedy (foreclosure) not provided for in the judgment. The Court emphasized that the execution must align with the judgment's terms.

  3. Remedy for Plaintiff: The Court set aside the order confirming the sale but allowed the plaintiff to secure a new writ of execution to enforce the money judgment.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order confirming the sale of the defendant's property. The writ of execution was declared null and void, and the plaintiff was given the opportunity to obtain a proper writ of execution to enforce the money judgment.


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.