Title
Joaquin vs. Avellano
Case
G.R. No. 2486
Decision Date
Oct 30, 1906
Leocadio Joaquín sued Tan Tongco for 2,000 pesos, attaching his leasehold interest. A receiver’s sale to Avellano conflicted with Joaquín’s prior attachment. SC remanded for new trial, prioritizing Joaquín’s lien and questioning leasehold validity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 2486)

Chronology of Events

On December 8, 1902, Joaquin initiated an action against Tan Tongco to recover 2,000 pesos. Following this, a writ of attachment was issued on December 11, 1902, which was levied on a leasehold interest in a tract of land situated in Calle Lemery, Tondo, Manila, and the building on said land. By February 26, 1903, a judgment was entered in favor of Joaquin for the recovery of the amount sought. Execution of this judgment led to the sale of the attached property on May 28, 1904, to Joaquin. However, the registrar refused to inscribe this sale due to a prior sale of the same property to Avellano by a court-appointed receiver.

Receiver's Actions and Legal Validity

On December 19, 1902, a receiver was appointed by the Court of First Instance to manage Tan Tongco's property, which was subsequently sold to Avellano on December 5, 1903. The court would later invalidate this order in the case of Blanco vs. Ambler, raising questions about the legality of the receiver's actions and the resultant sale to Avellano.

Legal Arguments and Claims

Joaquin's action sought to annul the sale made by the receiver to Avellano, asserting that his attachment had priority over any interest acquired through the receiver’s sale. The primary issue addressed was whether Avellano’s rights, if any were acquired, were subject to Joaquin’s prior attachment.

Court's Findings on Interests

The lower court found that Avellano had leased the property to Agustina Brillo, who allegedly lost her interest in the property before the attachment was levied. However, this finding lacked sufficient evidentiary support, particularly regarding the timeline of the lease and the interests held by Tan Tongco at the time of the attachment and during the sale.

Evidence and Due Process

The evidence primarily stemmed from Avellano’s testimony, which indicated a failure of Brillo to pay her due rent. Given the absence of clear evidence relating to the ownership and construction of the house, as well as the status of the leasehold interest during critical dates, the cas

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.