Title
Del Rosario vs. Yatco
Case
G.R. No. L-18735
Decision Date
Dec 29, 1966
In Del Rosario v. Yatco, the court ruled in favor of de Changco, allowing the execution sale of del Rosario's property to proceed despite more than five years having passed since the entry of judgment, based on the essential act of levy and the absence of a specified time period for the sale at public auction.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18735)

Facts:

  • Narciso del Rosario (petitioner) and Isabelo de Changco (respondent) are involved in a dispute.
  • In Civil Case No. 2869 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, de Changco obtained a judgment for a sum of money against del Rosario on June 16, 1955.
  • On February 10, 1956, de Changco requested a writ of execution to enforce the judgment.
  • The property of del Rosario covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4853 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan was levied upon by the provincial sheriff.
  • On December 28, 1959, del Rosario mortgaged the levied property to Severo Brigino, Fausta Roxas, and Simeona Roxas.
  • On June 14, 1961, del Rosario, along with his mortgagees, filed a petition to cancel the notice of levy, arguing that more than five years had passed since the notice of levy was made, and therefore, the plaintiff was barred from enforcing the judgment.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The court ruled in favor of de Changco and held that the execution sale can still be enforced.
  • The Court of First Instance did not commit an error in giving de Changco 60 days to sell the lev...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court limits the time within which a writ of execution may be issued to enforce a judgment.
  • However, it does not prescribe a period for the sale at public auction by the sheriff after the issuance of the writ of execution and a valid levy.
  • Previous cases support the ruling that a valid execution and levy made within the period provided by law may be enforced by a sale thereafter.
  • The levy is the essential act by which the property is set apart for the satisfaction of the judgment and taken into custody of the law.
  • After the property has been taken from the defendant, their interest is limited to its application to the judgment, irrespective of the time when it may be sold.

Detailed Digest:

  • Narciso del Rosario and Isabelo de Changco are parties to a dispute.
  • De Changco obtained a judgment against del Rosario in Civil Case No. 2869 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City on June 16, 1955.
  • De Changco requested a writ of execution on February 10, 1956, to enforce the judgment.
  • The provincial sheriff levied upon del Rosario's property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4853 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan.
  • On December 28, 1959, del Rosario mortgaged the levied property to Severo Brigino, Fausta Roxas, and Simeona Roxas.
  • Del Rosario and his mortgagees filed a petition on June 14, 1961, to cancel the notice of levy, arguing that more than five years had passed since the notice of levy was made, and therefore, the plaintiff was barred from enforcing the judgment.
  • The main issue in the case is whether the execution sale can still take place despite more than five years having elapsed since the entry of judgment.
  • The court ruled in favor of de Changco and held that the execution sale can still be enforced.
  • The Court of First Instance did not commit an error in giving de Changco 60 days to sell the levied properties, even after the lapse of five years from the entry of jud...continue reading

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.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.