This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| to hazards that come with the implementation of the judgment, sheriffs must perform their duties by the book.[15] | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Levy has been defined as the act or acts by which an officer sets apart or appropriates a part or the whole of a judgment debtor's property for the purpose of satisfying the command of the writ of execution.[55] The object of a levy is to take property into the custody of the law, and thereby render it liable to the lien of the execution, and put it out of the power of the judgment debtor to divert it to any other use or purpose.[56] | |||||
|
2001-02-02 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Also misplaced is petitioner's reliance on Ortega v. CA,[15] in which the Supreme Court allegedly recognized the private character of the disputed property. In that case, the sole issue was "whether the respondent judge xxx acted in excess of jurisdiction when he converted Civil Case No. 1184-O, an action for quieting of title, declaration of nullity of sale, and annulment of tax declaration of a parcel of land, into an action for the declaration of who is the legal wife, who are the legitimate children, if any, and who are the compulsory heirs of the deceased Joaquin Ortega."[16] The Court did not all make any ruling that the property had been classified as alienable. | |||||