THE PHILIPPINE CORK & INSULATION CO., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ISIDORO DE SANTOS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Plaintiff
obtained judgment in civil case No. 40772 of the Court of First
Instance of Manila against defendant Isidoro de Santos in the amount of
P10,244.29. Said judgment having become final, plaintiff secured a writ
of execution and of garnishment of the funds which John Gordon, who had
been appointed receiver of defendant’s properties in civil case No.
41033 entitled “El Hogar Filipino, plaintiff, vs. Isidoro de
Santos, The Bank of the Philippine Islands and John Gordon,
defendants”, held at defendant’s disposal as allowance for support
given the latter by his creditors in said case. Notwithstanding
defendant’s objections, the lower court sustained the writ of
garnishment and denied the motion filed to have it lifted. The order of
the lower court to this effect was dated October 10, 1935 and numbered
22. From said order, defendant appealed and now contends in his brief
that the lower court committed the following errors:

“1. The court a quo
erred in holding in said order that the amount of one thousand pesos
(P1,000) which the creditors El Hogar Filipino, the Bank of the
Philippine Islands and John Gordon give monthly to the debtor Isidoro
de Santos and his family by virtue of the agreement entered into
between the parties in civil case No. 41033, is not entitled to the
consideration of an allowance for support provided for by law.

“2. The court a quo
erred in not holding null and void in said order the garnishment
effected by the sheriff of Manila on the amounts in the hands of the
receiver as allowance for support of defendant and his family by virtue
of the aforesaid agreement which has been furthermore approved by final
and executory judgments.

“3. The court a quo
erred in not lifting the garnishment effected by the sheriff of Manila
on the sums to which defendant and his family are entitled for their
support;

“4. The court a quo erred in issuing the order dated October 22, 1935 in this case.”

The whole question raised in the four errors assigned by appellant may
be reduced to a determination of whether or not the amount of P1,000
which appellant received monthly from the receiver John Gordon, who was
appointed as such in civil case No. 41033, is subject to garnishment
and execution by virtue of the judgment of the lower court to satisfy
the judgment credit of the plaintiff corporation in the sum of
P10,244.29.

Appellant contends that the aforesaid amount is
not so liable for the reason that it is an allowance for support of
which he can not be deprived inasmuch as his right to receive it
monthly has been recognized in the case aforecited. This same question
has already been determined by this court in case G. R. No. 44427
entitled “Oscar E. Guerrero, plaintiff and appellee, vs. Isidoro de Santos, defendant and appellant”, decided on March 31, 1938 (38 Off. Gaz., 1928). We held therein that:

“Although
it appears from the agreement between Dr. Isidoro de Santos and his
creditors that this monthly allowance of P1,000 is for his support, in
reality, it is not. Said allowance being part of the rents derived from
the properties of Dr. Isidoro de Santos, it belongs to him and he
receives it, not as given by his creditors, but as coming from his own
property. In reality, the agreement from which this allowance
originated means nothing more than that the creditors have consented to
set aside a portion of the rents of the properties of Dr. Isidoro de
Santos before they are applied to pay his obligations. On the other
hand, this so-called allowance is not justified since it does not
appear that Dr. De Santos needs it for his support notwithstanding he
is a practicing physician and has a clinic in Manila.

“At
any rate, even if it were an allowance for support, it is not exempt
from execution, according to section 452 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, since it is not included among the properties enumerated in
this section. The appellant invokes article 151 of the Civil Code,
which provides that the right to support cannot be set off against any
indebtedness of the recipient in favor of the person required to
furnish such support. But the prohibition contained in this article
does not preclude the execution of the allowance, as it is not included
among the properties exempted by law. (Decisions of the Supreme Court
of Spain dated July 7, 1902 and February 27, 1903.) Act No. 3862, which
exempts from execution all moneys, benefits, privileges or annuities
accruing or in any manner growing out of any life insurance, is neither
applicable to the allowance in question as it does not originate from
life insurance. The condition requiring that an allowance, in order to
be exempted, must come from life insurance, excludes all other
allowances coming from other sources.”

There exists no reason for altering our conclusion. The reasons which
appellant then alleged are the same ones adduced by him in this case.
The allowance for support which he insists in claiming is the same as
that passed upon in the case above-mentioned. The present appeal must,
therefore, be disposed of in the same manner as his appeal in that case.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Villa-Real, J.;
I dissent from the opinion of the majority for the same reasons given
in my dissenting opinion in G. R. No. 44427 to which the majority
refer.