G.R. No. L-24434 - Reganon vs. Imperial

The heirs of Pedro Reganon, Jovencia Reganon, Mencias Reganon, Josefa Reganon, Violeta Reganon, and Flora Reganon acted as plaintiffs-appellees.
Rufino Imperial acted as defendant-appellant.
The case originated as an action for recovery of ownership and possession of about one-hectare portion of a parcel of land and included a demand for damages.

On February 22, 1963, the heirs of Pedro Reganon filed a complaint against Rufino Imperial for recovery of ownership and possession of about one-hectare portion of a parcel of land described as Lot No. 1 or Lot No. 4952, situated at Miasi, Polanco, Zamboanga del Norte, covered by O.T.C. No. 1447, with an area of 7.9954 hectares.
Defendant did not file an answer within the reglementary period.
On April 8, 1963, plaintiffs filed a motion to declare defendant in default.
On April 10, 1963, the trial court granted the motion and declared defendant in default.
On April 23, 1963, plaintiffs presented their evidence ex parte before the Clerk of Court acting as Commissioner.
On May 6, 1963, the trial court rendered judgment declaring plaintiffs the lawful owners of the land in question and entitled to peaceful possession and enjoyment.
The judgment ordered defendant to vacate the portion occupied by him and restore peaceful possession to plaintiffs.
The judgment also sentenced defendant to pay plaintiffs P1,929.20 and the costs.

On November 29, 1963, plaintiffs filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution.
On December 9, 1963, the trial court granted the motion.
On February 8, 1964, the Deputy Provincial Sheriff submitted a sheriff’s return reporting:

The garnishment and sale of a carabao and goat belonging to defendant for P153.00, sold to the only bidder, plaintiffs’ counsel Atty. Vic T. Lacaya.
The attachment and sale of defendant’s parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 4694 in Sicet, Polanco, Zamboanga del Norte, for P500.00, sold to the only bidder, plaintiffs’ counsel Atty. Vic T. Lacaya.

On March 13, 1964, the Philippine National Bank deposited in the Philippine National Bank–Dipolog Branch the residuary estate of its former ward Eulogio Imperial, in the sum of P10,303.80, pursuant to an order of Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte in Sp. Proc. No. R-145.
On May 25, 1964, the heirs of Eulogio Imperial executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, allocating P1,471.97 as Rufino Imperial’s share.

Upon learning of the extrajudicial partition and the allocation, plaintiffs filed on June 5, 1964 an ex parte motion for:

issuance of an alias writ of execution, and
an order directing the manager or representative of the Philippine National Bank–Dipolog Branch to hold defendant’s share and deliver it to the provincial sheriff for application to the balance of the money judgment.

On June 17, 1964, the Deputy Provincial Sheriff issued a sheriff’s notification for levy addressed to defendant, notifying him of the garnishments of rights, interests, shares, and participation over defendant’s share in the residuary estate of the late Eulogio Imperial, consisting of the money deposited in the Philippine National Bank–Dipolog Branch.
Defendant, through counsel, appeared before the trial court for the first time on June 24, 1964 and filed a motion for reconsideration of the June 9, 1964 order and a motion to quash the alias writ of execution issued pursuant thereto.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion on July 6, 1964.
On July 14, 1964, the trial court denied defendant’s motion.
Defendant’s second motion for reconsideration was also denied by the trial court in an order dated August 11, 1964.
Defendant appealed to the Court.

Guardianship termination point relied upon by defendant and trial court records

(Subscriber-Only)

Whether, upon the death of a ward, money accumulated in guardianship proceedings and deposited in a bank remained in custodia legis and thus not subject to attachment.
Whether the new Rules of Court (effective January 1, 1964) changed the rule and made property in custodia legis attachable through the procedure specified in Rule 57, Sec. 7, last paragraph.
Whether the death of the ward terminated the guardianship such that the money no longer remained under custodia legis, aside from the duty of accounting and settlement.

Whether the residuary estate of a U.S. veteran, consisting of the aggregate accumulated monthly allowances given by the USVA, was exempt from execution.

(Subscriber-Only)