G.R. No. L-31229 - Py Eng Chong vs. Herrera

Petitioner Py Eng Chong obtained a final, executory judgment against defendants Eduardo Uy Chiat and Cecilia G. Uy Chiat in Civil Case No. 65733, wherein they were jointly and severally ordered to pay P23,796.00, with interest and attorney’s fees.
The judgment became final and executory on June 6, 1967, leading to subsequent attempts to enforce it through a series of writs of execution.

A writ of execution was initially secured on September 28, 1967 but returned unsatisfied by the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental.
A First Alias Writ of Execution (December 9, 1967) was also returned unsatisfied when the Sheriff of the City of Manila attempted to levy on the properties of the judgment debtors, specifically targeting their participation in the general partnership of “Julia So De Chiat & Sons.”
On May 10, 1969, a Second Alias Writ of Execution was issued directing the Sheriff of Negros Occidental to levy on the properties of the debtors, focusing on twelve parcels of land registered in the name of the general partnership.

On July 22, 1969, Julia So De Chiat & Sons (the respondent partnership) filed an urgent motion to lift the levy claiming that the properties levied belonged exclusively to them and that the judgment debtors had withdrawn their interest by selling their participation in the partnership.
Petitioner opposed the urgent motion on July 29, 1969, arguing that the alleged deed of sale was simulated and that the respondent, as a third-party claimant, lacked proper standing to intervene in the action.
On August 20, 1969, the respondent partnership further argued that the judgment was a money claim and that, since Eduardo Uy Chiat had died on March 30, 1968, the execution could not be enforced against him.

On September 1, 1969, the trial court ordered the recall of the Second Alias Writ of Execution on the ground that the judgment debtor’s death precluded enforcement. It also noted that the judgment was essentially against the conjugal partnership.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on September 16, 1969 challenging the court’s procedure and alleging that the respondent should have filed a third-party claim under Section 17, Rule 39 rather than a motion to recall the writ.
The motion for reconsideration was denied on October 9, 1969, prompting petitioner to file the present petition for certiorari seeking annulment of the orders dated September 1, 1969 and October 9, 1969.
On January 15, 1970, a Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued by the Court restraining the respondent court, the respondent partnership, and the Sheriff from enforcing the recalled writ.

The respondent partnership should have filed its claim as a third-party claimant under Section 17, Rule 39 instead of seeking a recall of the writ of execution.
The trial court lacked authority to interpret or modify the finality of the judgment by stating it was against the conjugal partnership.
The judgment creditor (petitioner) was not obliged to file a claim with the decedent’s estate since no estate proceedings had been instituted.

Since Eduardo Uy Chiat died prior to the levy, a writ of execution could not operate against a deceased defendant in a money claim.
The proper remedy was for the judgment creditor to file his claim in the proceedings for the settlement of the decedent’s estate under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.

Whether a writ of execution can still be enforced against a judgment debtor who dies prior to the levy, particularly in a case involving a monetary judgment.
Whether the respondent’s motion to lift the levy and recall of the Second Alias Writ of Execution was a proper judicial action given the circumstances.

Whether the trial court erroneously interpreted or modified the final and executory judgment by referring to it as being “against the conjugal partnership.”
Whether the respondent partnership’s intervention as a third-party claimant was appropriate, or if they should have instead filed an independent third-party claim under Section 17, Rule 39.

Whether the judgment creditor (petitioner) is compelled to file a claim in the decedent’s estate proceedings in lieu of enforcing the judgment via a writ of execution.
Whether the absence of initiated estate proceedings prevents the judgment creditor from presenting his claim.