Balajonda vs.

Comelec and Francisco

Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Jalandoni vs. PNB
Facts: CFI ordered Petitioner to pay Respondent with interest. Within five
years from the entry of judgement, the sheriff levied the Lot of the
Petitioner in favor of the Respondent. No effort was made by the
Respondent to have the land sold by public auction. More than 10 years
after the levy, Petitioner filed a petition for the cancellation of levy on the
ground of prescription.
Issue: May the judgement debtors land, which was levied upon within
five years from entry of judgement, be sold at an execution sale after the
expiration of the ten-year period for enforcing the judgement?
Held: The appeal is granted. Properties levied upon by execution must be
sold in public auction within the period of ten years during which the
judgement can be enforced by action. The reason for that is that an
execution is enforced and therefore accomplished by levy and sale, not
by levy alone.
Fiestan and Arconado vs. CA, PNB, DBP and Peria
Facts: Petitioners mortgaged their land to the DBP as security. It was
foreclosed and DBP was the highest bidder. DBP sold the lot to Peria and
Peria mortgaged it to PNB. Petitioners were still in the lot so the
Provincial Sheriff ordered them to vacate. Petitioners filed a complaint
for annulment of sale, mortgage and cancellation of TCT against
Respondents.
Issue: Whether a levy is required in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale.
Held: The petition for review is denied. The formalities of a levy, as an
essential requisite of a valid execution sale under Rule 39 (15) and a
valid attachment lien under Rule 57, are not basic requirements before
an extrajudicially foreclosed property can be sold at public auction. Act
No. 3135 governs.
Dagooc vs. Sheriff Erlina
Facts: The RTC rendered a compromise agreement between the parties.
Petitioner moved for the execution of the decision which was endorsed to
the Respondent for execution. Instead of levying on the properties of the

defendants, Respondent asked them to execute promissory notes in favor

of the Petitioner.
Issue: Whether the payment in promissory notes is proper.
Held: The Respondent is found GUILTY of inefficiency and incompetence
and is SUSPENDED. Nowhere does the law mention promissory notes as
a form of payment. The only exception is when such form of payment is
acceptable to the judgement creditor.
Campillo vs. CA and Vda. De Santos and Simplicio Santos
Facts: de Vera sold the property to Respondent but said sale was not
presented for registration in the Registry of Deeds. Petitioner then
obtained a judgement for sum of money against de Vera and Petitioner
obtained an order for execution. The City Sheriff executed the deed of
sale in favor of the Petitioner.
Issue: Who has the better right or title to the disputed parcels of land?
Held: The petition for review is granted. A sale of real estate, whether
made as a result of a private transaction or of a foreclosure or execution
sale, becomes legally effective against third persons only from the date of
its registration. Consequently, and considering that the properties
subject matter hereof were actually attached and levied upon at a time
when said properties stood in the official records of the Registry as still
owned by and registered in the name of de Vera, the attachment, levy
and subsequent sale of said properties are proper and legal.
Manila Remnant Co. vs. CA and Sps. Ventanilla and Diaz
Facts: Respondents commenced an action for specific performance,
annulment of deeds and damages against Petitioner. Respondents filed
with the trial court a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution.
However, Petitioners said that the property could not be delivered so they
offered to reimburse the amount paid by Respondents. Petitioner filed a
manifestation and MR praying that it be ordered to reimburse the
Respondents and that the garnishment be lifted.
Issue: Whether garnishment is proper.
Held: The petition for review is dismissed. Partial execution of the
judgement is not included in the above enumeration of the legal grounds
for the discharge of a garnishment order.
Sps. Malonzo vs. Hon. Mariano and Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank

Facts: Universal Ventures mortgaged property in favor of Respondentbank. The Bank foreclosed the property and the Bank registered the sale
with the Register of Deeds. The Bank filed a writ of possession.
Petitioners filed a suit against Respondent seeking to perpetually restrain
the enforcement of the writ of possession against them, and to recover
damages.
Issue: Whether or not a writ of possession issued by a CFI in accordance
with Act 3135, to give possession of property sold at an extra-judicial
foreclosure sale to the purchaser thereof, may be enforced against
persons other than the mortgagor.
Held: The petition for prohibition is dismissed. The petitioners cannot be
deemed third parties actually holding the property adversely to the
mortgagor. They derive their rights to the possession of the property
exclusively from the mortgagor, in virtue of verbal agreements of lease.
Del Rosario and DATICOR vs. Far East Bank & Trust Company and
PDCP
Facts: DATICOR and PDCP entered into a foreign currency loan
agreement payable in installments. The loans were secured by real estate
mortgages. Petitioners had filed a complaint of Usury, Annulment of
Contract and damages. Petitioners filed another complaint for sum of
money against Respondents.
Issue: Propriety of the dismissal of the newer civil case.
Held: The petition for review is dismissed. There is no doubt that the
judgement in Civil Case No. 94-1610 was on the merits; judgment on
appeal relative to the Civil Case was a final judgement. As to the
requisite of identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action, it
cannot be gainsaid that the first case was brought by petitioners to
recover an alleged overpayment.
Davao Light and Power Co. vs. CA
Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of sum of money and
damages as well as an ex parte application for a writ of preliminary
attachment against Queensland Hotel.
Issue: Whether or not a writ of preliminary attachment may issue ex
parte against a defendant before acquisition of jurisdiction of the latters
person by service of summons or his voluntary submission to the Courts
authority.
Held: The petition for review is granted. After an action is properly
commenced- by the filing of the complaint and the payment of all
requisite docket and other fees- the plaintiff may apply for and obtain a

writ of preliminary attachment upon fulfillment of the pertinent

requisites laid down by law.
Sps. Olib vs. Judge Pastoral, RTC and Navia
Facts: Respondent sued the Petitioners for dissolution of the partnership
with a prayer for the issuance of the preliminary attachment. The RTC
ruled for the petitioners and the case was appealed to the CA but the writ
of preliminary attachment was not discharged.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC could discharge the writ of preliminary
attachment despite the case being appealed to the CA.
Held: The petition for certiorari is dismissed. A writ of preliminary
attachment is an auxiliary remedy and cannot have an independent
existence apart from the main suit or claim instituted by the plaintiff
against the defendant. Being merely ancillary to a principal proceeding,
the attachment must fail if the suit itself cannot be maintained as the
purpose of the writ can no longer be justified.
Valmonte vs. CA and Dimalanta
Facts: Petitioner is an American and is in America with a Filipino-Lawyer
husband. Respondent filed a complaint for partition of real property and
accounting against petitioner. Summons were served upon the husbandlawyer but he refused to accept the summons for his wife.
Issue: Whether in an action for partition filed against the petitioner,
summons intended for petitioner may be served on her husband who has
a law office in the Philippines.
Held: The petition for review is granted. As private respondents action,
which is for partition and accounting under Rule 69 is in the nature of an
action quasi in rem. Such an action is essentially for the purpose of
affecting the defendants interest in a specific property and not to render
judgement against him.
Traders Royal Bank vs. IAC
Facts: Petitioner filed a collection suit against Remco Distillery with a
writ of preliminary attachment against the assets of Remco. The Sheriff
levied barrels of alcohol found within Remco. La Tondea filed a thirdparty claim claiming ownership over the same attached property by the
petitioner.
Issue: The authority of a RTC to issue, at the instance of a third-party
claimant, an injunction enjoining the sale of property previously levied
upon by the sheriff pursuant to a writ of attachment issued by another
RTC.

Held: The petition for review is dismissed. The foregoing rule explicitly
sets forth the remedy that may be availed of by a person who claims to be
the owner of property levied upon by attachment, viz: to lodge a third
party-claim with the sheriff, and if the attaching creditor posts an
indemnity bond in favor of the sheriff, to file a separate and independent
action to vindicate his claim.
Pacis vs. Commission on Elections and Negre
Facts: Petitioner filed a preliminary injunction against Respondent for the
canvass of votes and the proclamation of the Respondent as Mayor in the
SC. Respondent was enjoined from performing his duties as Mayor after
receipt of the injunctive writ. The COMELEC dissolved the writ and the
Respondent moved for the assessment and award of damages sustained
by him.
Issue: Whether the respondent is entitled to recover damages sustained
as a result of a wrongfully obtained injunction.
Held: The petition for certiorari is dismissed. Damages sustained as a
result of wrongfully obtained injunction may be recovered upon the
injunction bond required to be filed with the court. There is nothing in
the Rules which allows recovery of damages other than upon the bond
pledged by the party suing for an injunction.
Hernandez et al. vs. National Power Corporation
Facts: Respondent constructed steel poles passing through Dasmarias
Village. Petitioners filed a compliant with prayer for the issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
against NAPOCOR.
Issue: Whether the trial court may issue a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction to enjoin the construction and operation of the
steel towers by NAPOCOR.
Held: The petition for review is granted. PD 1818 extends only to the
issuance of injunctions or restraining orders against administrative acts
in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical
cases. On issues clearly outside this dimension and involving questions of
law, this Court declared that courts could not be prevented from
exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.
Sabalones vs. CA and Remedios Sabalones
Facts: Petitioner left to his respondent-wife administration of their
conjugal properties. He later filed an action for judicial authorization to
sell a building belonging to the conjugal partnership. Private respondent

filed a counterclaim, prayer for legal separation, liquidation of the

conjugal properties. Pendente lite, the respondent wife filed a motion for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the petitioner
from interfering with the administration of their properties.
Issue: The preliminary injunction issued by the respondent pending
resolution of a case on appeal.
Held: The petition for review is denied. Pending the appointment of an
administrator over the whole mass of conjugal assets, the respondent
court was justified in allowing the wife to continue with her
administration. While it is true that no formal designation of the
administrator has been made, such designation was implicit in the
decision of the trial court denying the petitioner any share in the
conjugal properties.
Ulang vs. Court of Appeals and Salazar
Facts: Julian executed a Deed of Sale with Mortgage to the respondent.
Petitioner occupied one of these houses who was allowed by respondent
to stay in the premises with the condition that she will pay rent to the
respondent. Julian sold again the same property to the Sps. Ynares. and
Respondent filed a case in the CFI for recovery of possession against
Petitioner.
Issues: Respondent court erred in ruling that once a judgement becomes
final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of
execution because such ruling admits of an exception.
Held: The petition for review is denied. An injunction will not issue to
protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an
act which does not give rise to a cause of action. The complainants right
or title, moreover, must be clear and unquestioned, for equity, as a rule,
will not take cognizance of suits to establish title, and will not lend its
preventive aid by injunction where the complainants title or right is
doubtful or disputed.
Decano vs. Edu and Posadas
Facts: Respondent-Undersecretary issued to Petitioner a temporary
appointment as janitor in the Motor Vehicles Office. Posadas received a
telegram from Co-Respondent terminating Petitioners services.
Petitioner filed before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan a petition
for Mandamus and Injunction against Edu who is in Manila.
Issue: Correctness and legality of said national officials order dismissing
petitioner from the service of the Land Transportation Commission, and
the power of judicial review of the administrative decisions of national
officials is not confined to the courts of first instance of Metro Manila

where their offices are maintained to the exclusion of the courts of first
instance in those localities where the aggrieved parties reside and the
questioned decisions are sought to be enforced.
Held: Petition for Mandamus and Injunction is granted. We see no cogent
reason why this power of judicial review should be confined to the courts
of first instance of the locality where the offices of respondents are
maintained, to the exclusion of the courts of first instance in those
localities where the plaintiffs reside, and where the questioned decisions
are being enforced.
Verzosa vs. CA and Uson
Facts: Petitioner foreclosed the mortgaged land of the Respondent.
Respondent filed a complaint against Petitioner for annulment of
mortgage with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration upon the decision of the
Trial Court and afterwards, she filed her amended complaint.
Issue: What is the status quo ante that the said writ seeks to preserve?
Held: The petition for review is denied. The foregoing requisites for an
injunctive writ are present in this case. Where the acts are performed
after the injunction suit is brought, a defendant may not as a matter of
right proceed to perform the acts sought to be restrained and then be
heard to assert in the suit that the injunction will not lie because he has
performed these acts before final hearing has been had, but after the
beginning of the action. A defendant thus acts at his peril.
Tay Chun Suy vs. CA and DBP
Facts: SCLC obtained a loan secured with a mortgage from Respondent.
The mortgaged was foreclosed but Respondent did not register with the
Coast Guard the mortgage neither the foreclosure nor the auction sale.
SCHI entered into a Lease/Purchase Agreement with Respondent which
leased back the vessel. Petitioner caused the levy and attachment of the
same vessel in order to satisfy a judgement of the RTC.
Issue: As between the buyer of a vessel at a prior extrajudicial
foreclosure and the buyer at a subsequent auction sale, both buyers
failing to register their transactions, who has a better right of dominion
over the vessel?
Held: The petition for review is dismissed. A sheriffs ministerial duty to
conduct an auction sale is not without limitation. The procedure followed
by the Sheriff was patently irregular.
Normandy vs. Duque and Saura

Facts: Saura was appointed receiver of the WARVETS to do and perform

such acts respecting the property assets and transactions of the
organization as the court may authorize. He filed a motion in the lower
court to fix not only his compensation but also that of his co-receiver. The
lower court denied the Respondents motion. Respondent was discharged
as receiver and his compensation was fixed.
Issue: Whether the Respondent is entitled to reimbursement of the
salaries paid by him to his clerk as receiver of the WARVETS.
Held: The appeal is denied. Moreover, he is now estopped from claiming
any further amount as compensation for alleged clerical services
employed by him as such receiver without prior approval or authority of
this Court.
Chiao Liong Tan vs. CA and Yong
Facts: CLT is needed a vehicle to deliver the machinery and Respondent
asked Petitioner to look for one and gave Petitioner money as down
payment. Respondent himself paid the balance. Private respondent
allowed the registration of the vehicle in favor of the Petitioner. Petitioner
filed for a suit of replevin with damages.
Issue: Whether questions of ownership can be resolved in a replevin suit.
Held: The petition for review is dismissed. When the title to the property
is distinctly put in issue by the defendants plea and by reason of the
policy to settle in one action all the conflicting claims of the parties to the
possession of the property in controversy, the question of ownership may
be resolved in the same proceeding.
Northern Motors vs. Herrera and Taguba
Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint with a bond and an affidavit of replevin
against respondent. Respondent executed a promissory note in favor of
plaintiff to pay in installments secured by a chattel mortgage over the
car.
Issue: Whether the chattel mortgage needs to be delivered to a public
officer for foreclosure sale.
Held: The petition for certiorari and mandamus is granted. The Rules do
not require that in an action for replevin, the plaintiff should allege that
the mortgagee has asked or directed a public officer to foreclose the
mortgage and that the mortgagor has refused to surrender the
mortgaged chattel to such public officer.