Case Digest (G.R. No. L-39187)
Facts:
Anulina L. Vda. de Bogacki v. Hon. Sancho Y. Inserto, G.R. No. L-39187, January 30, 1982, Supreme Court Second Division, Concepcion Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Anulina L. Vda. de Bogacki (the widow) had a usufruct over one-sixth (1/6) pro indiviso of four parcels owned by her daughter, Ma. Emma Luz Bogacki (the registered owner and judgment creditor). A falling-out led the daughter to sue the mother in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo for partition and recovery of rentals; the CFI ordered the mother to limit her usufruct to 1/6 and to turn over 5/6 of rentals collected for the ten years prior to suit and an equivalent from judgment, judgment becoming final and execution issued March 3, 1971.
Because no other assets were available to satisfy the money judgment, the plaintiff moved to levy upon the usufructuary rights. The petitioning widow opposed, invoking (inter alia) Art. 321, Civil Code, Sec. 12(a) and Sec. 12(1), Rule 39, Rules of Court, and the alleged inability to extinguish a usufruct by sale. The CFI denied the motion to refrain from levy (order of March 25, 1971), denied the mother's urgent motion to stop the execution sale (order of June 24, 1971) and denied her motion for reconsideration (order of July 31, 1971). The sheriff levied on the usufruct (March 26, 1971) and the usufructuary rights were sold at public auction on July 21, 1971 to the daughter for P6,300.00.
Subsequently the daughter filed a motion for issuance of a writ of possession; the CFI granted it on August 5, 1974. The mother filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction (filed in this Court August 30, 1974, per the concurring opinion) seeking annulment of the levy, sale and writ of possession and to enjoin dispossession; this Court issued a temporary restraining order on September 23...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether there was an abuse of discretion in the levy and sale on execution of the petitioner's usufructuary rights and in the issuance of the writ of posse...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)