Santiago v. Sheriff of Manila
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Anacleto Santiago (Santiago) alleged that he purchased a house located at No. 29 Tambunting Street, Rizal Avenue Extension, Manila, on May 16, 1946, from Felisa Pascual. On August 20, 1946, a writ of execution was issued by Judge Gutierrez David of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. R-2184, titled Melchor Almoro v. Felisa Pascual, ordering the eviction of Felisa Pascual. Santiago presented a third-party claim (terceria) to the Sheriff of Manila on September 6, 1946, asserting his ownership and possession of the house. The Sheriff disregarded the claim and threatened to proceed with the execution. Procedural History: The Sheriff, upon attempting to enforce the writ, found Felisa Pascual, Emilia Escobar, and Juan Fernando, who pleaded with Melchor Almoro for an extension to vacate the house until September 9, 1946. Almoro agreed to this extension. Santiago maintained that he was the possessor and owner of the house at the time of the execution. The Petition: Santiago filed an original petition for mandamus, seeking to compel the Sheriff of Manila to suspend the execution of the writ based on his third-party claim and to require Melchor Almoro to post a bond, pursuant to Rule 39, Section 15 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sheriff of Manila can be compelled by mandamus to suspend the execution of a writ of possession based on a third-party claim. Whether Melchor Almoro can be compelled to post a bond in relation to the third-party claim. Whether a judgment in personam can be enforced against a stranger to the case who claims to be the bona fide possessor of the property.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is dismissed. The Sheriff is not obligated to suspend the execution, and Melchor Almoro is not compelled to post a bond. The enforcement of the judgment against a stranger claiming bona fide possession requires a prior hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of compelling the Sheriff to suspend execution and requiring a bond: The Court held that the invoked article (Rule 39, Section 15) pertains to properties levied upon for sale at public auction, not to a writ of possession in an ejectment case. The Sheriff is not obligated to preserve the property unless the execution creditor posts a bond. However, the Sheriff has discretion whether to lift or not the execution if no bond is posted by the execution creditor. The Sheriff cannot be ordered to suspend or not to proceed with the execution because his authority in such cases is discretionary. Similarly, Melchor Almoro cannot be ordered to post a bond, as he is free to do so or not, as he deems convenient. Therefore, the invoked article is inadequate for the relief sought. On the enforceability of a judgment in personam against a stranger: The Court reiterated the principle that a judgment rendered in an action in personam is enforceable only between the parties and their successors in interest, but not against strangers thereto, as provided by law (Art. 44, par. [b], Rule 39). If Santiago, who was not a party to the ejectment case, was the bona fide possessor of the property in question, the judgment rendered in that case could not be validly executed against him. However, the execution of the judgment may still be insisted upon if it is proven that the possessor is merely a privy, a guest, or an agent of the defendant with the fraudulent purpose of frustrating the judgment. In such a case, there must be a proceeding in the Court of First Instance that issued the writ of execution for the determination of the character of the possession of the stranger occupant. On the proper procedure for claims of bona fide possession by strangers: Citing the case of Omaña v. Gatulayao, the Court stated that when the actual possessor is claimed to be a privy to any of the parties, or their bona fide possession may be disputed, or where it is alleged that such possession has been taken in connivance with the defeated litigant with a view to frustrating the judgment, the proper procedure would be to order a hearing on the matter of such possession and to deny or accede to the enforcement of a writ of possession as the finding shall warrant. The resolution of the Court of First Instance in such a proceeding, which is solely for execution purposes, does not have a conclusive character in a subsequent action that any of the parties may file before a competent court for the final determination of the title to the property. If, in such a proceeding, the court finds that the stranger is merely a privy or agent or guest of the defendant, then the writ of execution shall proceed against him. This does not preclude the occupant from availing of any other legal remedy for the final determination of the title or possession of the property.
Main Doctrine
A judgment in personam is enforceable only between the parties and their successors in interest, but not against strangers thereto. If a stranger claims bona fide possession, a hearing must be held to determine the character of the possession before enforcing the writ of execution against them.