Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1952 > May 1952 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4869 May 26, 1952 - ESTEBAN MANGAOANG v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LA UNION

091 Phil 368:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4869. May 26, 1952.]

ESTEBAN MANGAOANG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LA UNION, Respondent-Appellee.

Leon V. Gaetos for Appellant.

Hermenegildo Gualberto and Juan Gualberto for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. EXECUTION; TIME FOR FILING THIRD PARTY CLAIM; DISCRETION OF SHERIFF TO REQUIRE INDEMNITY BOND. — Where property is levied upon by the sheriff by virtue of the writ of execution, any person other than the judgment debtor or his agent may file with the sheriff a third party claim at any time, as long as the sheriff has the possession of the property levied upon or before the property shall have been sold under execution, in which case the sheriff has the judgment and discretion to require the judgment creditor to file an indemnity bond if the latter wants the execution sale to be proceeded with, in accordance with section 15 of Rule 39.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, C.J. :


In civil case No. 39 of the Justice of the peace court of San Juan, La Union, a writ of attachment was issued in virtue of which one generator and two parcels of land were levied upon by the provincial sheriff as belonging to the defendants in said case. After judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Esteban Mangaoang, was rendered by the court, a writ of execution was issued, in pursuance of which the provincial sheriff was directed to sell the attached properties. Three days before the date of the sale, a third party claim was filed with the sheriff by one Gabriela Villanueva over the two parcels of land about to be sold. The sheriff notified the judgment creditor, Esteban Mangaoang, of this third-party claim and demanded from him an indemnity bond if he wanted the sale to be proceeded with, in accordance with section 15, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court. Esteban Mangaoang refused to file any bond, and insisted that the sheriff carry out the sale, contending that the third-party claim was filed too late. As the sheriff desisted from selling the properties, Esteban Mangaoang instituted in the Court of First Instance of La Union a petition for mandamus to compel the provincial sheriff to proceed with the execution sale. From a decision of the court dismissing the petition, the petitioner appealed.

It is contended for the appellant that the third-party claimant should have filed her claim with the sheriff before the latter had made a return to the writ of attachment. This contention is clearly without merit. We have here an execution sale. Section 15 of Rule 39 provides in part as follows: "If property levied on be claimed by any other person than the defendant or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serve the same upon the officer making the levy, and a copy thereof upon the judgment creditor, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment creditor or his agent, on demand, indemnify the officer against such claim by a bond in a sum not greater than the value of the property levied on, and, in case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by the court issuing the writ of execution." Under this provision, it is clear that any person other than the judgment debtor or his agent may file with the sheriff making the levy a third-party claim at any time, as long as the sheriff has the possession of the property levied upon, or before the property shall have been sold under execution.

The appellant, however, insists that because the two lots in question had been levied upon under a previous writ of attachment, the applicable provision is section 14 of Rule 59 which provides in part as follows: "If property taken be claimed by any other person than the defendant or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the ground of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer while he has possession of the property, and a copy thereof upon the plaintiff, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property under the attachment, unless the plaintiff or his agent, on demand of said officer, indemnifies him against such claim by a bond in a sum not greater than the value of the property attached, and in case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be decided by the court issuing the writ of attachment." Even under this provision, the provincial sheriff was plainly correct in requiring the appellant to file an indemnity bond, because the third-party claim was filed with the sheriff while he had possession of the properties levied upon, this being the only time limit fixed in said provision.

The purpose of the indemnity bond is obviously to protect the sheriff against damages that may accrue to the third-party claimant by reason of the attachment or execution sale, and the matter of requiring such bond lies within the judgment and discretion of the sheriff.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed, without costs. So ordered.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1952 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4367 May 2, 1952 - GENEROSA TORREFIEL, ET AL. v. ANASTACIO TORIANO

    091 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-3318 May 5, 1952 - CORNELIO ANTIQUERA v. SOTERO BALUYOT

    091 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-5482 May 5, 1952 - TRANQUILINO ROVERO v. RAFAEL AMPARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-4741 May 7, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO CAMO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-5514 May 7, 1952 - PEDRO CALANO v. PEDRO CRUZ

    091 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-4472 May 8, 1952 - ESPIRIDION RONE v. VICTOR CLARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5047 May 8, 1952 - VICENTE PANG KOK HUA v. REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS

    091 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-4002 May 12, 1952 - RAMON PASCUAL v. REALTY INVESTMENT, INC.

    091 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-4615 May 12, 1952 - JUAN DULDULAO, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    091 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-4133 May 13, 1952 - AGUSTINA DE GUZMAN VDA. DE CARRILLO v. FRANCISCA SALAK DE PAZ

    091 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4893 May 13, 1952 - PEDRO GAMBOA v. JOSE TEODORO

    091 Phil 270

  • G.R. Nos. L-4100 & L-4102 May 15, 1952 - INTERPROVINCIAL AUTOBUS COMPANY v. LUIS CLARETE

    091 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-4156 May 15, 1952 - FLORENCIA VITUG v. DONATA MONTEMAYOR

    091 Phil 286

  • G.R. Nos. L-4218-19 May 19, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO OBENIA

    091 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4420 May 19, 1952 - CESAR REYES v. MAX BLOUSE

    091 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-3899 May 21, 1952 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORINO CERVO

    091 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-4189 May 21, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JACINTO SANTOS

    091 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-4234 May 21, 1952 - ABBOT LABORATORIES v. CELEDONIO AGRAVA

    091 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-3391 May 23, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN HERNANDEZ

    091 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. L-4132 May 23, 1952 - FRANCISCO M. ALONSO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    091 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-4333 May 23, 1952 - MARY HAYDEN ARCACHE v. NICOLAS LIZARES & CO., INC., ET AL.

    091 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-3646 May 26, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    091 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-4043 May 26, 1952 - CENON S. CERVANTES v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL

    091 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-4783 May 26, 1952 - JULITA RELUCIO v. RAMON R. SAN JOSE, ETC.

    091 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. L-4869 May 26, 1952 - ESTEBAN MANGAOANG v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LA UNION

    091 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-3538 May 28, 1952 - JUAN LUNA SUBDIVISION v. M. SARMIENTO

    091 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-4061 May 28, 1952 - CENTRAL VEGETABLE OIL MANUFACTURING CO. v. PHIL. OIL INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION

    091 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-4091 May 28, 1952 - MARIANO M. PARAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

    091 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. L-4181 May 28, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. RODOLFO GERARDO

    091 Phil 395

  • G.R. Nos. L-4231 y L-4232 May 28, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ARTURO ALFARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-4316 May 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIGINIO MACADAEG, ET AL.

    091 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-4340 May 28, 1952 - REBECCA LEVIN v. JOAQUIN V. BASS

    091 Phil 419

  • G.R. Nos. L-4378-79 May 28, 1952 - MUNICIPALITY OF GATTARAN v. DOROTEO ELIZAGA

    091 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-4533 May 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MORALES

    091 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. L-4813 May 28, 1952 - ASSOCIATION OF BEVERAGE EMPLOYEES, ET AL. v. JOSE FIGUERAS

    091 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-4229 May 29, 1952 - DALMACIO FALCASANTOS v. HOW SUY CHING

    091 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4373 May 29, 1952 - ENRIQUE BAUTISTA v. LEONCIA REYES

    091 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-4683 May 29, 1952 - OLIMPIO NEÑARIA v. JOSE P. VELUZ

    091 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-4606 May 30, 1952 - RAMON B. FELIPE v. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 482