G.R. No. 32380 - Concepcion vs. Garcia

Petitioner: Dominga Concepcion, asserting a third-party claim as the wife of Florencio Reyes.
Respondent: Gregorio Garcia, serving as special deputy sheriff responsible for executing the attachment.

On August 9, 1929, the Government of the Philippine Islands instituted civil case No. 35867 in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila to recover P212,349.42, alleging misappropriation by Florencio Reyes, the former chief of the stamp division in the Bureau of Posts.
In support of this action, an attachment was executed against the defendant, which involved levying upon and seizing certain household effects as part of the defendant’s property.
Gregorio Garcia, in his capacity as special deputy sheriff, was responsible for the attachment and subsequently took possession of the affected household effects.

On September 20, 1929, Dominga Concepcion, acting as a third-party claimant under section 442 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed a written claim asserting her ownership of the household effects attached in the civil case.
In response, the respondent demanded that the Government furnish a bond to indemnify him against any liability arising from the attachment and the third-party claim.
The bond demanded was calculated based on the estimated value of the property (P5,500), resulting in a demand for P11,000 as an indemnity bond.
The Attorney-General intervened to extend the period for providing the bond until October 10, 1929, by which time the Legislature enacted Act No. 3531.
Act No. 3531, approved on September 28, 1929, amended sections 442 and 451 of the Code of Civil Procedure by adding a proviso that exempted the Government or its authorized officer from the bond requirement and provided that any suit against the sheriff would be defended by the Attorney-General, with damages payable from appropriated funds.

Dominga Concepcion filed a petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the respondent to surrender possession of the household effects claimed as her property.
The petitioner argued that Act No. 3531 should either be deemed inapplicable to the situation at hand or, if applicable, held unconstitutional on the ground that it imposes an ex post facto sanction contrary to section 3 of the organic law.

Whether the amendment contained in Act No. 3531, which eliminates the requirement for a bond when the Government is involved, can constitutionally be applied to the case of attachment affecting a third-party claim.
Whether applying this amendment retroactively constitutes an ex post facto law that is prohibited by section 3 of the organic law.

Whether, in the absence of the required bond pursuant to section 442, the sheriff (respondent) is legally obligated to surrender the attached household effects to the third-party claimant.
Whether the discretionary power granted by section 442 to the sheriff absolves him from a mandatory duty to release the property.