Case Digest (G.R. No. 11403)
Facts:
- Santiago Codesal and Aquilina Ocampo are the plaintiffs and appellees.
- Romana Ascue is the defendant and appellant, acting as the administratrix of the estate of the deceased Pedro Martinez.
- Ascue initiated a legal action in the Court of First Instance of Manila (cause No. 7373) against Matias Caoibes and others to recover a sum of money.
- A judgment was rendered in favor of Ascue, leading to an execution placed in the sheriff's hands.
- The sheriff, following Ascue's direction, attached a parcel of land owned by the plaintiffs.
- Codesal and Ocampo notified the sheriff of their ownership of the land, complying with legal requirements.
- Despite the notification, the sheriff intended to sell the property under execution due to Ascue's bond.
- The plaintiffs filed an action to enjoin the sheriff from proceeding with the sale.
- The Court of First Instance granted a temporary injunction, which became final after hearing both parties.
- Ascue appealed, questioning the sufficiency of facts for the injunction and the ownership of the land.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on both issues.
- It affirmed the lower court's decision that the facts justified granting both a preliminary and a final injunction.
- The court conc...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court reasoned that a sheriff cannot attach or sell property not belonging to the judgment debtor.
- It cited Section 164 of Act No. 190, allowing for an injunction when a sheriff threatens to sell one person's property to sati...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 11403)
Facts:
The case involves Santiago Codesal and Aquilina Ocampo as plaintiffs and appellees against Romana Ascue, the administratrix of the estate of Pedro Martinez, deceased, as the defendant and appellant. The events leading to this litigation began when Romana Ascue initiated an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila, designated as cause No. 7373, against Matias Caoibes and others to recover a sum of money. A judgment was rendered in favor of Ascue, leading to the issuance of an execution that was placed in the hands of the sheriff. The sheriff, acting on the direction of Ascue, attached a parcel of land owned by the plaintiffs, which was described in the complaint. Upon learning of the attachment, Codesal and Ocampo notified the sheriff of their ownership of the land, complying with legal requirements. Despite this notification, the sheriff persisted in his intention to sell the property under the execution, as Ascue had provided the necessary bond. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed an action to enjoin the sheriff from proceeding with the sale. The Court of First Instance granted a temporary injunction upon the plaintiffs' petition, and after hearing both parties, th...