Embedded Files
Valentin Montojo, Tee Leong Sio, Te Tan Cuy, and Carlos Villa Abrille, Petitioners, vs. Ceferino Hilario, Judge of the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District, and A. G. Castillo, Provincial Sheriff of Davao, Respondents.
Background
The case concerns a writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Davao on May 22, 1933, against the sureties on a bond given to protect the sheriff after a third party claim had been filed regarding properties seized on an earlier execution. The sureties were strangers to the initial action, and the original defendant company was dissolved. When the execution against the principal of the bond and the sheriff was returned unsatisfied, the original third-party claimant sought a writ of execution against the sureties, which was approved by the court. The sureties then sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the enforcement of this writ of execution.
Parties involved
Petitioners: Valentin Montojo, Tee Leong Sio, Te Tan Cuy, and Carlos Villa Abrille.
Respondents: Ceferino Hilario (Judge of the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District), and A. G. Castillo (Provincial Sheriff of Davao).
Contentions of proceedings
The petitioners contended that the writ of execution against them was improper, as they were not party to the original action and the court had no jurisdiction to issue the writ against them. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the liabilities of sureties on a bond to protect a sheriff on a third-party claim are the same as that of sureties on a supersedeas bond.
Supreme Court decision
Justice Hull, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the Court of First Instance of Davao had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution against the petitioners. The Court found that the respondent's contention regarding the liabilities of sureties was not supported by authority, while the petitioners were able to cite authority to support their position that execution could not issue against the surety until after action against them.
The writ of execution was declared null and void, and the preliminary injunction previously issued by the Court was made absolute. Costs were ordered against the respondent.
In conclusion, the decision emphasizes the importance of jurisdiction and correct legal procedure in issuing writs of execution, particularly against sureties who were not a party to the original action. The decision of the lower court was found to be improper, and the Supreme Court granted the petitioners' request for a permanent prohibition against the writ of execution.
Important dates
Third-Party Claim Filed: [Date not mentioned in the text]: A third-party claim was filed with the sheriff regarding properties seized.
Writ of Execution Issued: May 22, 1933: Issued by the Court of First Instance of Davao against the sureties on a bond given to protect the sheriff.
Preliminary Writ of Prohibition Granted: [Date not mentioned in the text]: Granted by the Supreme Court to prevent enforcement of the writ of execution.
Supreme Court Decision: September 14, 1933: The Supreme Court declared the writ of execution null and void, and made the preliminary injunction absolute.
Titles and derivatives
Not explicitly detailed.
Reference
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1933). Valentin Montojo, Tee Leong Sio, Te Tan Cuy, and Carlos Villa Abrille, Petitioners, vs. Ceferino Hilario, Judge of the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District, and A. G. Castillo, Provincial Sheriff of Davao, Respondents, G.R. No. 39925. Retrieved from https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1933/sep1933/gr_39925_1933.html
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse