Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > October 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18239 October 30, 1962 - CESAR ROBLES, ET AL. v. DONATO TIMARIO, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18239. October 30, 1962.]

CESAR ROBLES, ELISA G. DE ROBLES, and SULPICIO ROCO, Petitioners, v. DONATO TIMARIO, ET AL., Respondents.

Ramon Imperial and Donato C. Valenzuela, for Petitioners.

Reyes & Dy-Liacco for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENTS; EXECUTION; PROPERTY CEDED TO JUDGMENT CREDITOR AS PART PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT CREDIT; DETERMINATION AND DEDUCTION OF VALUE TO BE MADE IN THE SAME PROCEEDING. — The value of a parcel of land ceded to a judgment creditor as part payment of his judgment credit, should be determined and deducted from the judgment. Such determination can not be properly made in an independent suit, because the judgment debtor to its benefit, and to have the exact balanced fixed. Besides, the reduced judgment may affect the amount of property to be sold; it may sway prospective bidders for the property levied upon, as well as influence the judgment debtor, or his successor in interest, in deciding whether or not he should redeem the property sold.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF ASSIGNEE TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN VIEW OF ACCEPTANCE OF PART PAYMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITOR. — The assignment of an attached property by the judgment debtor to another person with the stipulation that the assignee would assume payment of whatever of whatever amount might be finally adjudged against the former, and the acceptance by the judgment creditor of a part payment from the assignee, vest upon said assignee the right to intervene in the proceedings concerning the execution of the judgment.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


From the records of this case for certiorari, we gather that in Civil Case No. 3015 of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, certain properties of the defendants Cesar Robles and Elisa C. de Robles, consisting of a house and lot, were preliminarily attached. In the decision, promulgated thereafter, said defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs, Donato Timario and Consuelo J. Timario, the sum of P9,218.00, with costs. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and became final and executory; but execution thereof was set aside by the Supreme Court, on certiorari (G.R. No. L-13911, Apr. 28, 1960; 107 Phil., 809) for the reason that the writ of execution ordered collection of legal interest, which was not authorized in the judgment.

Now the matter of execution of the decision has again come up to this Court, this time petitioners claiming that the whole amount of P9,218.00 should not be enforced against them in view of supervening circumstances that transpired pending their appeal of the principal case.

In the present case, petitioners alleged that, pending the former appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Robles spouses sold the attached properties to one Sulpicio Roco, their co-petitioner, under stipulation that the latter should assume payment to the Timarios of whatever amount may finally be adjudged in their favor; that the Timarios, learning of the transaction, verbally requested Roco to cede to them a strip of land with an area of approximately 84 square meters, and, upon assent by Roco, took possession of the premises. The petition further alleges that through a letter dated June 16, 1959, sent by petitioner Roco’s counsel to the Timarios, Roco offered payment to them of the amount of P9,218.00, adjudged against the spouses Robles:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . after deducting the value of the small parcel of land in Dimasalang street which Mr. Roco ceded to you as part of the redemption; and with respect to the ‘legal interest’, he will abide by the result of the certiorari case."cralaw virtua1aw library

i.e., G. R. No. L-13911; that Donato Timario answered the letter (Annex C) manifesting:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . I wish to state that inasmuch as the period for redemption had already expired and inasmuch as you have raised this point in your motion to the Supreme Court, it seems to me that it would be better to wait for the resolution of the Supreme Court of your said motion." ;

and that when the earlier certiorari case was decided, the Timarios moved again for execution for the full amount of P9,218.00, without deducting the value of the strip of land ceded to them.

Except for the motion for the writ of execution for the full amount, the respondents denied all the preceding allegations, not only in their answer to the present petition but also in previous pleadings filed with the trial court.

Over the opposition to the motion for execution filed by herein petitioners, the lower court, in its order dated December 20, 1960, granted the issuance of an alias writ of execution because of the denial by the plaintiffs Timarios (herein respondents) of the alleged agreement with Sulpicio Roco, and because, even if true, said contract is foreign to the case and may be the subject of an independent action. Further steps to proceed with this alias execution were blocked when this Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction.

The theory of petitioners is that there has been a change in the situation of the parties which makes the execution inequitable at present. We agree. If it be true (and Timario’s letter, Annex "C", above-quoted does not deny it) that Roco did cede to the Timarios the parcel of land in Dimasalang street as part payment of their judgment credit, it is but just that the value of this property should be determined and deducted from the judgment. Such determination can not be properly made in an independent case, because the judgment debtor is entitled to the benefit of it, and to have the exact balance fixed. In addition, the reduced judgment may affect the amount of property to be sold; it may sway prospective bidders for the property levied upon, as well as influence the judgment debtors, or their successors in interest, in deciding whether or not they should redeem the property sold. Much complication can be avoided if the trial court should resolve now what is the true balance of the judgment in favor of respondents Timario, instead of leaving the question open for a separate suit that does not appear to be a fully adequate remedy.

As to Roco’s personality to intervene, it must be remembered that the property attached was transferred to him, and he has stepped into the shoes of his assignors, the original party defendants; and if the Timarios did accept a part payment from him (Roco), they would be stopped to question his intervention in these proceedings.

The order appealed from is hereby set aside and the records ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings conformable to this decision, in order to determine the exact balance of the judgment in favor of spouses Timario before execution is issued. The preliminary injunction is hereby made permanent. Costs shall be paid by respondents Donato and Consuelo Timario.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.

Makalintal, J., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-10614 October 22, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TUAZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17474 October 25, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE V. BAGTAS

  • A.C. No. 57 October 30, 1962 - HERMENEGILDO U. ABSALUD v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-48922 October 30, 1962 - AMPARO M. VDA. DE ROYO v. N. T. DEEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12919 October 30, 1962 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS HOSPITAL v. U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15183 October 30, 1962 - IN RE: PAULINO P. GOCHECO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO T. ESTACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15548 October 30, 1962 - JOSE KABIGTING v. ACTING DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-16096 October 30, 1962 - C. N. HODGES v. DY BUNCIO & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16174 October 30, 1962 - RUBEN O. SANGALANG v. BRIGIDA VERGARA

  • G.R. No. L-16519 October 30, 1962 - PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN, ET AL. v. PEDRO PALISOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16705 October 30, 1962 - ANTONIO E. QUEROL v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17053 October 30, 1962 - GAVINO LAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17176 October 30, 1962 - ROSENDO RALLA v. MATEO L. ALCASID, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17207 & L-17372 October 30, 1962 - U.S.T. PRESS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17399 October 30, 1962 - BONIFACIO SY PIÑERO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17530 October 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAUSIANO ENOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17570 October 30, 1962 - ROSALINA MARTINEZ v. AURELIA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17645 October 30, 1962 - JULIANA ZAPATA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-17784 October 30, 1962 - MARIANO GARCHITORENA v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17822 October 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO DOMENDEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17924 October 30, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18008 October 30, 1962 - ELISEA LAPERAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18066 October 30, 1962 - JUANITA NAIRA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18068 October 30, 1962 - IN RE: ANTONIO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18112 October 30, 1962 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG ALAK v. HAMILTON DISTILLERY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18216 October 30, 1962 - STOCKHOLDERS OF F. GUANZON, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-18235 October 30, 1962 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. KIN SAN RICE AND CORN MILL COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18239 October 30, 1962 - CESAR ROBLES, ET AL. v. DONATO TIMARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18622 October 30, 1962 - LIM SON v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-18953 October 30, 1962 - EMILIO ARZAGA v. FRANCISCO BOBIS, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-20010 October 30, 1962 - FRANCISCO BOIX, ET AL. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13486 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN BAGSICAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13968 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO CORTEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14366 October 31, 1962 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14542 October 31, 1962 - MANUEL A. CORDERO v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14848 October 31, 1962 - COLUMBIAN ROPE COMPANY OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. TACLOBAN ASSOC. OF LABORERS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15201 and L-15202 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO G. TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15310 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO ABLOG

  • G.R. No. L-15605 October 31, 1962 - URSULA FRANCISCO v. JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15983 October 31, 1962 - MAXIMO ACIERTO, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16587 October 31, 1962 - VICTORIA D. MIAILHE, ET AL. v. RUFINO P. HALILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16708 October 31, 1962 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. L-16789 October 31, 1962 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17008 October 31, 1962 - ALLISON J. GIBBS, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17062 October 31, 1962 - MARIANO S. RAMIREZ v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17168 October 31, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. AMBROSIO CABILDO

  • G.R. No. L-17429 October 31, 1962 - GLICERIA RAMOS, ET AL. v. JULIA CARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17560 October 31, 1962 - VICENTE GARCIA, ET AL. v. JOSE FENOY

  • G.R. No. L-17619 October 31, 1962 - FRANCISCA GATCHALIAN v. GORGONIO PAVILIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17439 October 31, 1962 - JOSE IRA, ET AL. v. MARINA ZAFRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17760 October 31, 1962 - RAMCAR, INC. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17772 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17898 October 31, 1962 - PASTOR D. AGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17914 October 31, 1962 - ROSARIO MARTIN VDA. DE MALLARI v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17991 October 31, 1962 - JOSE MA. DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18006 October 31, 1962 - IN RE: CUAKI TAN SI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18030 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESMAEL SUSUKAN

  • G.R. No. L-18078 October 31, 1962 - AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATIVE FINANCING CORP. v. GOYENA LUMBER CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18231 October 31, 1962 - MIGUEL R. SOCCO, ET AL. v. SALVADORA G. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18253 October 31, 1962 - WENCESLAO PLAZA, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18285 October 31, 1962 - IN RE: TOMASA V. BULOS v. VICENTE TECSON

  • G.R. No. L-18338 October 31, 1962 - KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA v. RICARDO TANTONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18379 October 31, 1962 - AMANDA V. CABIGAO v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18588 October 31, 1962 - INES R. DE PAGES, ET AL. v. MATEO CANONOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18589 October 31, 1962 - BALDOMERO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRA CABLAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19968-69 October 31, 1962 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL. v. FILOMENO B. YBAÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20131 October 31, 1962 - MACO STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20141-42 October 31, 1962 - JOAQUIN CUATICO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20389 October 31, 1962 - FRANCISCO B. BAUTISTA v. PRIMITIVO A. GARCIA