Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > December 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18735 December 29, 1966 NARCISO DEL ROSARIO v. YATCO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18735. December 29, 1966.]

NARCISO DEL ROSARIO, Petitioner, v. HON. JUDGE YATCO, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF BULACAN and ISABELO DE CHANGCO, Respondents.

Felipe R. Abel for Petitioner.

A. A. Gonzales for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. EXECUTION AND LEVY; EXECUTION SALE MAY BE ORDERED EVEN AFTER FIVE (5) YEARS FROM ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. — The Court of First Instance did not commit error in giving plaintiff 60 days to sell the properties levied upon even after the lapse of five years from entry of judgment where it appears that execution and levy was made within the five-year period limited by the rules.

2. ID.; JUDGMENT, SATISFACTION OF; WRIT OF EXECUTION; RULE 39, SECTION 6 CONSTRUED. — While Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, limits the time within which a writ of execution may be issued to enforce a judgment, it does not prescribe a period when the sale at public auction by the sheriff shall take place after the issuance of the writ of execution and a valid levy made pursuant thereto. This rule is no authority for petitioner’s contention that since more than five years have elapsed since the entry of judgment, execution sale can no longer take place.

3. ID.; ID.; ENFORCEMENT OF EXECUTION AND LEVY; REASON FOR RULE. — A valid execution and levy made within the period provided by law may be enforced by a sale thereafter. . . . The sale of the property by the sheriff and the application of the proceeds are simply the carrying out of the writ of execution and levy which when issued were valid. This rests upon the principle that the levy is the essential act by which the property is set apart for the satisfaction of the judgment and taken into custody of the law, and that after it has been taken from the defendant, his interest is limited to its application to the judgment, irrespective of the time when it may be sold (Southern Cal. Co. v. Hotel Co., 94 Cal. 217). It appearing that the execution and levy in this case was made within the five-year period limited by the Rules, we see no error committed by respondent Judge in issuing the order complained of.


D E C I S I O N


REGALA, J.:


In Civil Case No. 2869 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, the plaintiff Isabelo de Changco obtained on June 16, 1955 a judgment for a sum of money against the defendant Narciso del Rosario. On February 10, 1956, the said plaintiff asked for a writ of execution by virtue of which the property of del Rosario covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4853 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan was levied upon, the provincial sheriff thereof having caused a notice of levy inscribed in said Registry of Deeds.

On December 28, 1959, del Rosario, judgment debtor, mortgaged the levied property to Severo Brigino, Fausta Roxas and Simeona Roxas. Later, or on June 14, 1961, the said del Rosario, joined by his mortgagees filed before the court a Petition to Cancel Notice of Levy in Civil Case No. 2869, on the ground that since more than five years have already elapsed after the notice of levy and yet no execution sale was made during that period, the plaintiff is already barred from enforcing the judgment and his only recourse is to institute an ordinary action to revive judgment.

The plaintiff, Isabelo de Changco, filed opposition to the petition to cancel notice of levy, arguing that the judgment in the case was already enforced by the issuance of the writ of execution on February 10, 1956 by virtue of which notice of levy dated February 16, 1956 was duly inscribed and annotated on the title covering the property involved.

After consideration of the petition and opposition thereto, the court issued an order dated July 8, 1961, giving the plaintiff Isabelo de Changco "sixty (60) days within which to take the necessary steps to have the execution issued in this case be satisfied by going through with the sale of the properties levied otherwise the court will order the cancellation of the levy on execution as prayed for in the petition." His motion for the reconsideration of this order having been denied, the defendant, del Rosario, brought the instant petition for certiorari with injunction protesting against the order giving de Changco a period of time to sell the properties levied upon and the order denying reconsideration thereof. Petitioner contends that since more than five years have elapsed since the entry of judgment, execution sale can no longer take place.

As prayed for, We issued, at the outset of the certiorari proceedings, a preliminary injunctive writ restraining the carrying out of the questioned orders.

After going over the record, We do not think the judge committed any abuse of discretion in giving the plaintiff sixty (60) days to sell the properties levied upon. Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, upon which the herein petitioner bases his argument, reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Execution by motion or by independent action. — A judgment may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry, or from the date it becomes final and executory. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action."cralaw virtua1aw library

This rule is no authority for petitioner’s contention because while it limits the time within which a writ of execution may be issued to enforce a judgment, it does not prescribe a period when the sale at public auction by the sheriff shall take place after the issuance of the writ of execution and a valid levy made pursuant thereto. This observation was first made by this Court in the case of Government of the Philippines v. Echaus, Et Al., 71 Phil. 319, referring to a similar provision in the Code of Civil Procedure 1 which was governing at that time. The following is the ruling laid down in the said case which was recognized and restated in Nestora Rigor vda. de Quiambao, Et. Al. v. Manila Motor Co., Inc. and the Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-17384, decided on October 31, 1961.

"We are of the opinion that a valid execution and levy made within the period provided by law may be enforced by a sale thereafter . . . The sale of the property by the sheriff and the application of the proceeds are simply the carrying out of the writ of execution and levy which when issued were valid. This rests upon the principle that the levy is the essential act by which the property is set apart for the satisfaction of the judgment and taken into custody of the law, and that after it has been taken from the defendant, his interest is limited to its application to the judgment, irrespective of the time when it may be sold (Southern Cal. Co. v. Hotel Co., 94 Cal. 217, 222)." (Emphasis supplied)

It appearing that the execution and levy in this case was made within the five-year period limited by the Rules, We see no error committed by the respondent judge in issuing the orders complained of.

In view hereof, We are dismissing the petition for certiorari and injunction. The writ of preliminary injunction issued heretofore is hereby ordered dissolved. Costs against the petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Section 443, which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When Execution May Issue — The party in whose favor judgment is given may, at any time within five years after entry thereof, have a writ of execution issued for its enforcement, as hereinafter provided."




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






December-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21168 December 16, 1966 BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. GAVINO CAMUNAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-14441 December 17, 1966 PEDRO R. PALTING v. SAN JOSE PETROLEUM INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. L-21915 December 17, 1966 GEORGE W. LUFT COMPANY, INC. v. NGO GUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21803 December 17, 1966 BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC. v. MANILA HOTEL WORKERS’ UNION-PTGWO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21775 December 17, 1966 CO PEK, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-19457 December 17, 1966 VICTORIO MERCADO, ET AL. v. FELIX R. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. L-18411 December 17, 1966 MAGDALENA ESTATES, INC. v. ANTONIO A. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16394 December 17, 1966 JOSE STA. ANA, JR., ET AL. v. ROSA HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-18328 December 17, 1966 DIOSDADA SABINO v. CONRADO CUBA

  • G.R. No. L-21763 December 17, 1966 MUNICIPALITY OF COMPOSTELA, CEBU v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-19740 December 17, 1966 SEVERINO GAGOLA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18630 December 17, 1966 APOLONIO TANJANCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17392 December 17, 1966 JOSE SORIANO v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

  • G.R. No. L-21335 December 17, 1966 ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. VIVENCIA ANDO PEPITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25641 December 17, 1966 RAFAEL M. ABAYA v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21601 December 17, 1966 NIELSON & COMPANY, INC. v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-19879 December 17, 1966 CINEMA, STAGE & RADIO ENTERTAINMENT FREE WORKERS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18089 December 17, 1966 VICTORINA ZABALLERO MILLAR v. RURAL BANK OF LUCENA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16379 December 17, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAO WAN SING

  • G.R. No. L-18393 December 17, 1966 USAFFE VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19797 December 17, 1966 MARCIANA VILLOCINO, ET AL. v. PEDRO DOYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20011 December 17, 1966 PEDRO CABALAG, ETC., ET AL. v. ROXAS Y CIA., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17742 December 17, 1966 DON VICENTE NOBLE v. MARIA S. NOBLE

  • G.R. No. L-18159 December 17, 1966 CASINO ESPAÑOL DE MANILA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18826 December 17, 1966 ANTONIO Y. MAYUGA v. CESAR. R. MARAVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-23139 December 17, 1966 MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION, INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17571 December 17, 1966 HOSPICIA ENCABO, ET AL. v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-22395 December 17, 1966 STATE BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22209 December 17, 1966 PHILIPPINES INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-25503 December 17, 1966 LEON DEL ROSARIO v. HON. BIENVENIDO CHINGCUANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-16745 December 17, 1966 AURORA CAMARA VDA. DE ZUBIRI v. WENCESLAO ZUBIRI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19548 December 22, 1966 NICEFORO S. AGATON v. PATRICIO PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26723 December 22, 1966 ARTHUR MEDlNA Y YUMUL v. MARCELO F. OROZCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-20330 December 22, 1966 ADOLFO RACAZA v. SUSANA REALTY INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19297 December 22, 1966 MARVEX COMMERCIAL CO. INC. v. PETRA HAWPIA & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19173 December 27, 1966 ROSE DESAMITO v. TRINIDAD CASAS-CUYEGKENG

  • G.R. No. L-21278 December 27, 1966 FEATI UNIVERSITY v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-21950 December 28, 1966 AMBROCIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVA BERROYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19460 December 28, 1966 ROQUE BAIRAN v. AGUSTIN TAN SIU LAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20406 December 29, 1966 ENRIQUE R. YU KING v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

  • G.R. No. L-19945 December 29, 1966 NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION v. PRISCO WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18210 December 29, 1966 LAURENTIO ARMENTIA v. ERLINDA PATRIARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18735 December 29, 1966 NARCISO DEL ROSARIO v. YATCO, ET AL.