This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-04-24 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In determining whether the husband is a stranger to the suit, the character of the property must be taken into account. In Mariano v. Court of Appeals,[11] which was later adopted in Spouses Ching v. Court of Appeals,[12] this Court held that the husband of the judgment debtor cannot be deemed a "stranger" to the case prosecuted and adjudged against his wife for an obligation that has redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.[13] On the other hand, in Naguit v. Court of Appeals[14] and Sy v. Discaya,[15] the Court stated that a spouse is deemed a stranger to the action wherein the writ of execution was issued and is therefore justified in bringing an independent action to vindicate her right of ownership over his exclusive or paraphernal property. | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In this case, Raco availed of the remedy known as terceria,[14] by serving on the officer making the levy an affidavit of his title and a copy thereof upon petitioners. Upon receipt of such affidavit, sheriff Belarmino who is not bound to keep the properties because of such third party claim, notified petitioners of such claim and required them to post an indemnity bond in the amount of P2,700,000.00 on February 4, 2002 to answer for any liability he may incur by reason of such execution. The matter of the invalidity of the affidavit of the third-party claimant was never raised by petitioners in the trial court which could have still ruled on the same since the records were still with it at the time such third party claim was filed. Moreover, petitioners even filed an indemnity bond in the amount of P1,400,000.00 with the Office of the Sheriff on February 18, 2002. | |||||