BENITO MANEJERO, PETITIONER, VS. MARIANO BUYSON LAMPA, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO, ESTRELLA ZAMORA, ACCOMPANIED BY HER HUSBAND RICARDO LUNA, AND THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF…

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari
filed by the petitioner to set aside the order entered by the
respondent judge on October 11, 1934, directing the clerk of court to
issue a new writ of execution in civil case No. 9627 of the Court of
First Instance of Iloilo, declaring that the sum of P610 deposited by
the petitioner, pending the determination of civil case No. 9628 of
said court, is subject to attachment by virtue of said execution, and
setting aside that part of his order of October 3, 1934, declaring that
said sum should be held on deposit, and also to set aside the writ of
execution issued by the clerk of court pursuant to said order of
October 11, 1934.

In the same Court of First Instance of Iloilo, the petitioner
instituted civil case No. 9628, entitled Benito Manejero, plaintiff, vs.
Encarnacion Luna de Manahan, Pedro Manahan, Ricardo Luna, Estrella
Zamora and the provincial sheriff of Iloilo, defendants, in which it
was sought to annul the deed of sale of lot No. 54 of the Iloilo
cadastre. In said case, the petitioner consigned and deposited with the
clerk of court various sums of money amounting to P610, to be applied
to the result of the suit. The deposit appears to have been made in
conformity with the provisions of articles 1176 and 1178 of the Civil
Code, in view of the fact that in that case the petitioner sought to
annul a sale for which he had received a certain sum of money in
payment. It is materially impossible to make an exact statement of the
nature of that case owing to the fact that the petitioner has not
attached to his petition for certiorari the documents annexed thereto
and referred to therein.

On September 20, 1934, said civil
case No. 9628 was dismissed at the instance of the petitioner. On the
following day, however, said petitioner again filed a new complaint
alleging the same causes of action against the same defendants, and the
case was docketed in that court as No. 9971. The petitioner notified
the clerk of court that the consignation and deposit made by him in the
dismissed case should be considered as consignation and deposit in the
new case No. 9971.

In the justice of the peace court of the City of Iloilo, the
respondents Ricardo A. Luna and Estrella Zamora instituted ejectment
proceedings against the herein petitioner and obtained judgment against
him for the sum of P120 for rents due and unpaid, plus a monthly rent
of F15. The petitioner appealed from the judgment and the case was
docketed in the Court of First Instance as No. 9627. Inasmuch as the
petitioner had failed to pay to the respondents the rents due, or had
not deposited them with the clerk of court as required by section 88 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, the respondents, as plaintiffs
in that case, prayed the court to issue a writ of execution of the
judgment entered by the justice of the peace court and to apply the sum
of P610 deposited with the clerk of court for the enforcement of said
execution which was granted. The petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order directing execution of the judgment and
succeeded in having the court set it aside, on the ground that the
money so deposited was property in custodia legis. Said
respondents, in turn, filed a motion for reconsideration and the court,
on October 11, 1934, entered the order with which the present petition
is concerned, setting aside its former order and directing that the
clerk of court issue a new writ of execution of the judgment of the
justice of the peace court and that the deposit of P610 be applied to
the payment of said judgment.

The clerk of court issued the writ of execution and the respondent
sheriff, upon delivery to him of said writ, attached the sum of P310,
paid the sum of P362.16 to the respondent Luna spouses, and retained
the balance which continues to be in his hands.

The principal contention of the petitioner is that the respondent
judge lacked or exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the issuance of
the writ of execution and the application of the deposit of P610 to the
payment of the judgment entered by the justice of the peace court, and,
as his ground, it is alleged that said sum could not be levied on by
the respondent sheriff because it was in custodia legis.

The respondents contend that when the sheriff attached said money, the same was no longer in custodia legis,
for the reason that it took place immediately after the dismissal of
civil case No. 9628 and before the institution of the other case No.
9971.

It is a well-established doctrine in practically every jurisdiction
that money deposited with a clerk of court is exempt from attachment
and not subject to execution. (Springer vs. Odlin, 3 Phil., 344; 23 C. J., p. 357, sec. 107.)

The allegation of the respondents to the effect that the sheriff
attached the money when the first case had already been dismissed is of
no weight, in view of the undisputed fact that, in dismissing said
case, the court made no pronouncement regarding the consignation or
deposit and, consequently, the money remained as consignation or
deposit made by the petitioner in the second case No. 9971. From the
moment the deposit was made by the petitioner, the money remained under
the control and jurisdiction of the court and,the former could not
recover it without an express order of restitution. For this reason,
when the sheriff levied on it, the money continued to be in custodia legis.

The fact that the petitioner did not notify the respondents of the
deposit, in violation of the provisions of articles 1177 and 1178 of
the Civil Code, is of no moment, because the object of this case is not
to determine the effects produced by the consignation for the purpose
of releasing the petitioner from his liability in connection with the
contract of sale which he sought to annul. What appears to be certain
is that the money was really deposited with the clerk of court and for
that reason it was exempt from attachment and execution.

Wherefore, the remedy applied for is granted, the order of October
11, 1934, as well as the writ of execution issued by the clerk of
court, is set aside, and the respondents Estrella Zamora, Ricardo Luna
and the provincial sheriff of Iloilo are ordered to return to the clerk
of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo the sum of P610, with costs
against the respondent spouses Ricardo Luna and Estrella Zamora. So
ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.