G.R. No. L-63419 - Lozano vs. Martinez

Venancio Queblar, as plaintiff and appellee, obtained judgment in a civil case (No. 2778 of the Court of First Instance of Cavite) against defendant Leonardo Garduno for a sum of P7,750 with legal interest beginning May 4, 1933, and costs of suit.
The action was instituted by Queblar for the recovery of a mortgage credit.
The judgment was subsequently appealed by both parties before this Court, where on January 16, 1936, the judgment was affirmed with a slight modification, ordering Garduno to also pay 5% of P7,750 as a penalty for attorney's fees.

After the lower court’s judgment was confirmed, Queblar petitioned for and obtained the execution of the judgment.
The sheriff of the City of Manila executed the writ of execution by levying the property situated at No. 174 Marquez de Comillas Street, Manila, which was described in transfer certificate of title No. 48775 issued in the name of Maria Andrada.
The levy was duly noted both on the corresponding register and on the back of the transfer certificate of title.

A public auction of the mortgaged property yielded only P100 from the sale.
In view of the deficient sale proceeds, Queblar sought another writ of execution on October 19, 1936, aiming to collect the remaining unpaid balance.
In response, Maria Andrada, the registered owner of the property as per the title, filed a third-party claim with the sheriff on November 5, 1936, later amending it on November 17, 1936.

Andrada contended that the property legitimately belonged to her, having purchased it from Carmen Garduno on February 13, 1936.
She supported her claim with a transfer certificate of title No. 48775 issued in her name.

The initial sale was delayed because the sheriff postponed the sale pending Queblar’s filing of the required bond, fixed by the lower court at P10,000.
When the sale finally became imminent, Maria Andrada requested the dissolution of the writ of execution, alleging its illegality since the levied property was hers.
The petition to dissolve the writ was denied by the court on January 25, 1937, prompting Andrada to file an appeal against that order.

Whether the levy executed by the sheriff on the levee property, according to the judicial writ of execution, was valid and proper despite the third-party claim of Maria Andrada.
Whether the actions taken pursuant to section 451 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 4108, were correctly applied in this case.

Whether Maria Andrada, as a third-party claimant not originally a party to the initial action between Queblar and Garduno, should have characterized her legal remedy as an appeal.
Whether the appropriate course of action for Andrada would have been to institute a separate revindicatory or damages action against the judgment creditor or the purchaser, rather than an appeal of the lower court’s order.