Velez v. Nacua
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Leon Velez filed a collection case (Civil Case No. R-1961) against Felix Nacua for P10,000.00. Separately, respondents Gracia Vda. de Nacua and her ward Julius Cesar Nacua filed a damages case (Civil Case No. R-1970) against Felix Nacua for P76,400.00. In both cases, writs of preliminary attachment were issued against the properties of Felix Nacua. Procedural History: The writ of attachment in Civil Case No. R-1970 was recorded on July 21, 1952, at 10:30 a.m., while the writ in Civil Case No. R-1961 was recorded on the same date at 3:02 p.m. Gracia Vda. de Nacua, not a party to Civil Case No. R-1961, filed a motion to quash the attachment therein, arguing it was null and void because her writ was recorded first. Petitioner opposed, asserting Gracia Vda. de Nacua lacked personality to file the motion and that his writ was served earlier. The respondent judge quashed the writ in Civil Case No. R-1961, and denied reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, arguing the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in quashing the writ of attachment.
Issue(s)
Whether Gracia Vda. de Nacua, not being a party to Civil Case No. R-1961, has the legal personality to file a motion to quash the writ of attachment issued therein. Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in quashing the writ of attachment in Civil Case No. R-1961.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The assailed orders of the respondent judge are set aside as null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the legal personality to file a motion to quash: The Court held that Gracia Vda. de Nacua, not being a party to Civil Case No. R-1961, lacked the legal personality to file a motion to quash the writ of attachment issued in that case. The Court reiterated the ruling in Jose M. Tiaoqui et al. vs. Judge Fernando Jugo and the National City Bank of New York, which established that only the defendant in a case has the right to ask for the dissolution or quashal of a writ of attachment. Gracia Vda. de Nacua was neither a defendant nor an intervenor in Civil Case No. R-1961, thus she had no standing to question the attachment. Her claim of preferential right based on the earlier recording of her writ should have been brought in an ordinary action, not through a motion to quash in a case where she was not a party. On the prematureness of the action and the respondent judge's action: The Court found that the action to annul the attachment or assert preferential rights was premature. Both the petitioner and Gracia Vda. de Nacua had not yet obtained any judgment against Felix Nacua in their respective cases. Therefore, any dispute regarding the efficacy or preferential right of their writs of attachment could not be resolved at that stage. The respondent judge, in quashing the writ, overlooked that the writ was properly issued, without fraud or irregularity, and had created a vested right in favor of the petitioner. Such a vested right cannot be abrogated or annulled through a mere motion to quash. Consequently, the respondent judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A party not privy to a case, who is neither a defendant nor an intervenor, has no legal personality to file a motion to quash a writ of attachment issued in that case. Furthermore, any action to annul an attachment or assert preferential rights based on it is premature before a judgment is obtained in the principal case.