THE NATIONAL EXCHANGE CO., INC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSE H. KATIGBAK ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

It appears from the record that on February 7, 1927, in civil case
No. 30642 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the plaintiff
obtained a judgment against Jose H. Katigbak, as principal, and Gabino
Barretto, as surety, for the sum of P19,807.85, with interest at 12 per
cent per annum from January 1,1922, and with the costs. On April 29,
1927, a writ of execution was issued in said case against the defendant
Jose H. Katigbak, but the sheriff being unable to find any property
pertaining to said defendant, the writ was returned unsatisfied on May
13, 1927. Another writ of execution was issued on March 27, 1928, with
the same result.

On January 20, 1928, Katigbak obtained a judgment in case No. 31998
against Po Sun Suy and Po Ching for the sum of P28,500, with legal
interest from the filing of the complaint, and a copy of the judgment
was furnished his attorney, Vicente Sotto, on January 31, 1928. Nine
days thereafter Sotto, on behalf of Katigbak, filed a motion in the
latter case setting forth that Katigbak had transferred all his rights,
interests, and participation in the judgment to one Po Sun Tun, his
codefendant in the present case, in consideration of the sum of
P20,000. Six days later, Sotto, in representation of Katigbak, filed a
petition in the aforesaid case No. 31998 alleging that the defendants
in that case were about to transfer and alienate their property with
the intention of defrauding the plaintiff and praying that an
attachment be levied on their property, and upon the filing by Katigbak
of a bond in the sum of P3,000, the petition was granted on February
17, 1928.

The present action was brought on April 19, 1928, the plaintiff
setting forth the facts above related and further stating, in
substance, that the alleged transfer by Katigbak to Po Sun Tun was
fictitious and made with the deliberate purpose of defrauding
Katigbak’s creditors. The plaintiff therefore prayed that said transfer
be declared null and void and that a preliminary attachment be levied
on all rights, interests, and participation in the judgment obtained by
Katigbak against Po Sun Suy and Po Ching. Upon filing by the plaintiff
of a bond of P3,000, the desired writ of attachment was issued.

Upon trial the court below held that the transfer to Po Sun Tun was
fraudulent under article 1297 of the Civil Code and rendered judgment
setting aside said transfer. From such judgment the defendants
appealed.

The contention of the appellants is that it had not been proven (1)
that Katigbak had no other property than that transferred to Po Sun Tun
and (2) that fraud had been committed by the defendants-appellants. The
first point is sufficiently refuted by calling attention to the fact
that in endeavoring to accomplish the writs of execution in case No.
30642 the sheriff was unable to find any property upon which execution
could be levied, and it has not been intimated that he was negligent in
the performance of his duty. The second point raised by the appellants
is equally without merit.

The second paragraph of article 1297 of the Civil Code provides
that “alienations for valuable considerations, made by a person against
whom any judgment in any instance has been previously rendered, or
against whom any writ of attachment has been issued, shall also be
presumed fraudulent.” The defendants in the present case made no
attempt to rebut the presumption established by the provision quoted,
and it follows that it sufficiently proves the fraudulent character of
the transaction in question. A rebuttable presumption can only be
overcome by evidence to the contrary, and the burden was on the
defendants to present such evidence. The case of Sobrevilla vs.
Montinola (22 Phil., 124), is not in point.

The appealed judgment is affirmed with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.