This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-01-18 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It is a basic principle of law that money judgments are enforceable only against property incontrovertibly belonging to the judgment debtor, and if property belonging to any third person is mistakenly levied upon to answer for another man's indebtedness, such person has all the right to challenge the levy through any of the remedies provided for under the Rules of Court. Section 16[22], Rule 39 thereof specifically provides that a third person may avail himself of the remedies of either terceria, to determine whether the sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken hold of the property not belonging to the judgment debtor or obligor, or an independent "separate action" to vindicate their claim of ownership and/or possession over the foreclosed property.[23] However, "a person other than the judgment debtor who claims ownership or right over the levied properties is not precluded from taking other legal remedies to prosecute his claim".[24] | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Likewise, since the third-party claimant is not one of the parties to the action, he cannot, strictly speaking, appeal from the order denying his claim, but he should file a separate reivindicatory action against the execution creditor or the purchaser of the property after the sale at public auction, or a complaint for damages against the bond filed by the judgment creditor in favor of the sheriff.[79] | |||||
|
2006-01-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the property, to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action x x x. (Emphasis supplied) Complainant's indemnity bond was meant to answer for damages which de Lucia might suffer if respondent Sheriff had proceeded with the sale. It would have served as respondent Sheriff's shield against any personal liability. On the other hand, de Lucia could have posted a counter-bond to stay the execution of the decision, a remedy she obviously chose not to pursue. At any rate, de Lucia was not helpless. Section 16 of Rule 39 provides that she had the right to file an independent action against complainant or whoever might purchase the property at the sale or afterwards. [17] | |||||
|
2005-04-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| What is truly important to consider, the Court ruled in Golangco v. Court of Appeals,[46] is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants who ask different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or restated causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different courts upon the same issues. In Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[47] the Court ruled that for forum shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transactions, the same circumstances; and the actions must also raise identical causes of actions, subject matter and issues. Forum shopping is an act of malpractice that is prohibited and considered as trifling with the court. It is an improper conduct which tends to degrade the administration of justice. But there is no forum shopping where two different orders or questions, two different causes of action and issues are raised, and two objectives are sought.[48] | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| While the instant petition was pending, the Court decided the case of Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Urbano C. Victorio, Sr. et al.[71] In the said case, the Court ruled that there was no forum-shopping as there was no identity of parties, rights and causes of action and reliefs sought. The case before the NLRC was a labor case on which Yupangco was not a party, while the accion reinvindicatoria was filed to recover the property illegally levied upon and sold at public auction. The Court held that a third party may avail himself of alternative remedies cumulatively, and one will not preclude the third party from availing himself of the alternative remedies in the event he failed in the remedy first availed of. The Court likewise annulled the sale on execution of the subject property and the subsequent sale of the same, disposing of the case as follows: | |||||