Case Digest (G.R. No. 10174)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 10174)
Facts:
Py Eng Chong v. Hon. A. Melencio Herrera, G.R. No. L-31229, March 25, 1976, the Supreme Court Second Division, Antonio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Py Eng Chong obtained a money judgment from the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 65733 dated June 6, 1967, ordering defendants-spouses Eduardo Uy Chiat and Cecilia G. Uy Chiat to pay P23,796.00 with interest, attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner secured an original writ of execution dated September 28, 1967, which the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental returned unsatisfied; a First Alias Writ issued December 9, 1967 and directed to the Sheriff of the City of Manila was likewise returned unsatisfied.
On May 10, 1969 the trial court issued a Second Alias Writ of Execution directed to the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental; on June 23, 1969 the sheriff levied upon the judgment debtors’ rights and participation in the general partnership Julia So De Chiat & Sons, affecting twelve parcels of land covered by specified transfer certificates of title. On July 22, 1969 the partnership filed an Urgent Motion to Lift Levy, alleging that the levied properties belonged exclusively to the partnership and that the judgment debtors had sold their interests to Julia So de Chiat. Petitioner opposed, alleging the sale was simulated and invoking the doctrine in Queblar v. Garduno that a third-party claimant cannot intervene as a party in the original action.
The partnership later moved (Aug. 20, 1969) on the ground that, because the judgment was for money and Eduardo Uy Chiat had died on March 30, 1968, a writ of execution could no longer be enforced against him. Petitioner countered that the judgment had become final and executory before the debtor’s death and could be enforced against his successors-in-interest. After hearing, on September 1, 1969 the trial court (Hon. A. Melencio Herrera) granted the motion, recalled the Second Alias Writ and ordered the judgment creditor to file his claim in the decedent’s estate proceedings, stating among other things that the judgment was “really against the conjugal partnership.” Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (filed Sept. 16, 1969) was denied on October 9, 1969.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court to annul the orders of September 1 and October 9, 1969. This Court earlier issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on January 15, 1970 restraining enforcement of the trial court’s order. The present appeal proceeded by certiorari to review and annul the trial court’s recalled writ and denial of reconsideration.
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in recalling the Second Alias Writ of Execution and ordering the judgment creditor to present his claim in the deceased judgment debtor’s estate proceedings where the levy occurred after the debtor’s death?
- Was the respondent partnership required to invoke the third‑party claimant procedure under Section 17, Rule 39 (or otherwise) rather than move to recall the writ of execution?
- Did the trial court unlawfully amend or modify the final judgment by stating that the judgment was “against the conjugal partnership”?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)