G.R. No. L-20609. September 29, 1966
JUAN DE BORJA, MARCELA DE BORJA, SATURNINA DE BORJA, EUFRACIA DE BORJA, JACOBA DE BORJA AND OLIMPIA DE BORJA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST …
DIZON, J.:
Jacoba and Olimpia, all surnamed De Borja, to set aside the order of
May 19, 1962 of the Hon. Eulogio Mencias, Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, in Civil Case No. 2414 entitled “Intestate Estate of
the Deceased Marcelo de Borja, Crisanto de Borja, Administrator, etc.”,
as well as his order denying their motion for reconsideration, and to
compel him to cause the sale of the properties levied upon to satisfy
the final judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in
Civil Case No. 2414.
The record discloses that a money judgment involving the sum of
P46,210.78, plus interests, was rendered in favor of petitioners
against respondent Crisanto de Borja in Civil Case No. 2414 of the
Court of First Instance of Rizal. Said decision having become final, a
writ of execution was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondent
Provincial Sheriff of Rizal levied on the rights, interest and
participation which Crisanto de Borja had in certain real properties in
the province of Rizal, as an heir of the decedents Josefa Tangco and
Francisco de Borja, whose estates were then pending settlement in
Special Proceedings Nos. F-7866 and 1955 of the aforementioned court,
respectively.
Thereafter, respondent Jose de Borja, as administrator of the estate
of Josefa Tangco, filed with the respondent sheriff a third-party claim
alleging that the properties levied upon were in custodia legis
in connection with the settlement of the estate involved in Special
Proceedings No. 7866 mentioned heretofore. Acting upon this claim, the
sheriff required petitioners to post an indemnity bond in the amount of
P2,500,000.00.
Contending that it was not their duty to file such bond, petitioners
filed a motion praying that the court order the sale of the properties
levied upon, without the need of their filing such bond.
On October 17, 1958 the respondent judge issued an order whose dispositive part reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, this Court hereby holds that whatever
interest, claim or right which Crisanto de Borja may have in the
testate estate of Josefa Tangco and in the intestate estate of
Francisco de Borja are subject to attachment and execution for the
purpose of satisfying the money judgment rendered against the said
heir; that said interest, claim or right have been legally levied upon
and consequently can be sold by the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal for the
satisfaction of the judgment rendered in favor of the petitioners
herein, the filing of the so-called third-party claim notwithstanding.
It further holds that there is no sufficient reason for requiring the
judgment creditors to file an indemnity bond. As a consequence, the
Court hereby directs the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal to proceed with
the sale of the rights, interests and claim of Crisanto de Borja in the
aforementioned estates upon compliance with the requirements of the
Rules of Court.”
His motion for reconsideration of the above order having been
denied, respondent-administrator Jose de Borja appealed to Us (G. R.
No. L-14851), and on August 31, 1961, We rendered judgment affirming
the appealed order. Said decision having become final and executory,
petitioners filed with the respondent judge a motion for the issuance
of an alias writ of execution, which motion was granted in an order
dated February 26, 1962, of the following tenor:
“Wherefore, the Court hereby orders the Provincial
Sheriff of Rizal to continue with his proceedings in the first writ of
execution which had already been issued. Let another writ of execution
with respect to the costs adjudged in the last decision of the Supreme
Court issue.”
Upon motions for reconsideration filed by respondents Crisanto de
Borja and Jose de Borja, in their capacities as administrators of the
intestate estate of the deceased Francisco de Borja (CFI-Rizal, 1955)
and the testate estate of Josefa Tangco (CFI-Rizal, 7866),
respectively, on the ground that the rights and interest of the
judgment debtor (Crisanto de Borja) in the aforesaid estates could be
sold only after final settlement of the latter, pursuant to Section 9,
Rule 59 of the Rules of Court (Section 9 of Rule 57 of the New Rules of
Court), and praying that the sheriff be directed to proceed with the
execution accordingly, the respondent judge issued, on May 19, 1962,
the amendatory order subject-matter of this action, which reads as
follows:
“Considering the two motions for reconsiderations
dated March 23, and March 20, 1962, filed by Crisanto de Borja and Jose
de Borja, respectively, to be well-taken and notwithstanding the
opposition filed thereto, the same are hereby granted, and the order of
the Court dated February 26, 1962, is hereby amended in the sense that
the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal be ordered to garnish whatever share or
interests the judgment debtor may or might have by way of share or
inheritance in the estate of the deceased Jose Tangco subject of
Special Proceedings No. 7866 of this Court and in the estate of the
deceased Francisco de Borja subject of Special Proceedings No. 1955
also of this Court, in accordance with the provision of Section 9, Rule
59 of the Rules of Court and in conformity with the doctrine laid down
in the case of Litonjua vs. Montilla, G. G. No. L-4170, promulgated on
January 31, 1962.”
Their motion for reconsideration of the above-quoted order having
been denied, petitioners filed the present petition claiming that
respondent judge’s order of May 19, 1961 illegally modified the final
judgment of the Supreme Court in G. R. No. L-14851 which directed the
sale of the properties levied upon for the satisfaction of the judgment
rendered in favor of petitioners in Civil Case No. 2414.
It is a fact that whatever rights, interest and participation
Crisanto de Borja has in certain real properties under judicial
administration in Special Proceedings Nos. F-7866 and 1955 of the Court
of First Instance of Rizal, were properly levied upon pursuant to the
writ of execution issued by said court in Civil Case No. 2414. On the
other hand, it is beyond question that such rights, interest and
participation are subject to attachment and/or levy in execution in
accordance with Section 9, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. The question
to be resolved here is whether or not, after the attachment or levy in
execution, the rights, interest and participation of Crisanto de Borja
in the estate left by decedents Josefa Tangco and Francisco de Borja
may be sold at public auction to satisfy the money judgment rendered
against him.
The above question, in our opinion, must be answered in the
affirmative, provided it is understood that the sale shall be only of
whatever rights, interest and participation may be adjudicated to said
heir as a result of the final settlement of the estates, and that
delivery thereof to the judgment creditor or to the purchaser at the
public sale thereof shall be made only after the final settlement of
the estates and in the manner provided by the legal provision mentioned
above.
WHEREFORE, modifying and/or clarifying the appealed order in
the manner stated in the next preceding paragraph, judgment is hereby
rendered directing the respondent court to proceed accordingly. Without
costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.