Title
IN RE: Cajefe vs. Ferdez
Case
G.R. No. L-15709
Decision Date
Oct 19, 1960
The Supreme Court ruled that a writ of execution and execution sale conducted without notice to the sureties are null and void in the case of In re Cajefe v. Fernandez.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15709)

Facts:

  • Case of In re Cajefe v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-15709, decided on October 19, 1960
  • Complaint for forcible entry filed by Mariano Cojuangco against Eugenio Bardaje, Cecilio Cajefe, and Damasino Cajefe in the Justice of the Peace Court of Santa Rita, Samar
  • Plaintiff requested a writ of preliminary injunction to be placed in possession of the disputed land, which was granted upon posting a bond
  • Defendants filed a counterbond with sureties
  • Justice of the Peace Court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to restore possession of the land and pay damages
  • Defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance, and the judgment was affirmed
  • Judgment became final and executory
  • Plaintiff moved for execution of the judgment
  • Provincial sheriff issued an order of execution against the counterbond posted by the defendants
  • Execution sale of the sureties' properties took place

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The writ of execution and execution sale are n...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The writ of execution was issued without notice to the defendants' sureties and after the judgment had already become final and executory
  • Cited the case of Alliance Insurance & Surety Co. vs. Piccio, which held that a claim for damages against a surety should be included in the final judgment, and notice to the surety should be given before the trial or, at the latest, before entry of final judgment
  • Since the writ of execution against the surety's bond was null and void, the execution sale conducted by the provincial sheriff was also completely null and void
  • The court considered the petition for prohibition as a petition for certiorari...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.