Sammons v. Favila
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff W. H. Sammons brought an action against defendant sheriff Macario Favila to recover damages amounting to P972.40, allegedly caused by the seizure of Sammons' property located in a saloon. The property was seized under a writ of attachment against one Morse. Sammons and Morse were co-owners of the property until November 25, 1905, when Morse sold his interest to Sammons via a written instrument. The business license was initially in the names of Morse and Sammons, but was changed to Sammons alone on January 1, 1906. The attachment was levied on January 13, 1906. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan rendered judgment in favor of Sammons, awarding him P672.40, with interest and costs. Defendant sheriff appealed this judgment. The Petition: The defendant sheriff appealed the decision of the lower court, primarily arguing that Sammons failed to present a written claim of ownership as required by section 442 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff presented a written claim of ownership to the sheriff as required by section 442 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether the sheriff is liable for damages due to the seizure and sale of property claimed by a third party.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the plaintiff presented a written claim of ownership to the sheriff as required by section 442 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The Court affirmed the finding of the lower court that Sammons had sufficiently presented his claim of ownership. Sammons testified that he employed a lawyer in Manila after being notified of the seizure, and this lawyer swore to an affidavit of ownership which was then delivered to the deputy sheriff. The lawyer produced a copy of this affidavit at the trial, and the deputy sheriff admitted receiving the contract of sale from November 25, though he initially could not recall and later denied receiving an affidavit of ownership. The Court found this evidence strongly in favor of Sammons, making it difficult to reverse the lower court's finding on this point. The Court noted that the case was stronger for the plaintiff than in a similar prior case, Uy Piaoco vs. Osmeña. On the issue of whether the sheriff is liable for damages due to the seizure and sale of property claimed by a third party: The Court found that Sammons was the sole owner of the property at the time of the levy, as established by proof. The evidence showed that Sammons was in possession of the property, claimed sole ownership, and exhibited the contract of purchase and the license in his name to the deputy sheriff. While proceedings were suspended temporarily due to Sammons' claim, the property was ultimately taken and sold. Given that Sammons' ownership was fully established and his claim of ownership was presented, the sheriff's actions in proceeding with the attachment and sale rendered him liable for damages.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff who levies upon property in the possession of a third party claiming ownership, after being presented with evidence of such ownership, may be held liable for damages if the property is subsequently sold under the writ of attachment.