Scribd
Upload
64 views3 pages

Saberon v. Ventanilla, 722 SCRA 287

Y filed a case against A, X, and Z regarding ownership of land. The court ruled in favor of Y. Z then filed a case in a different court (RTC Baguio) seeking to enjoin the execution of the first court's (RTC Urdaneta) judgment. Y filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the second court lacked jurisdiction. The judge would grant the motion to dismiss, as no court has the power to interfere with judgments of a court of concurrent jurisdiction to avoid confusion and hampering justice.

Uploaded by

merii
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
64 views3 pages

Saberon v. Ventanilla, 722 SCRA 287

Y filed a case against A, X, and Z regarding ownership of land. The court ruled in favor of Y. Z then filed a case in a different court (RTC Baguio) seeking to enjoin the execution of the first court's (RTC Urdaneta) judgment. Y filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the second court lacked jurisdiction. The judge would grant the motion to dismiss, as no court has the power to interfere with judgments of a court of concurrent jurisdiction to avoid confusion and hampering justice.

Uploaded by

merii
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Saberon v.

Ventanilla, 722 SCRA 287

Y entered into a contract to sell of a parcel of land with A, which Y paid a partial amount of the purchase
price to A. A however sold the same subject land to B without the knowledge of Y. When Y discovered
the fictitious transaction he filed for an annulment of sale for the subject land between A & B.

The court decided in favor of Y, thus Y moved for the issuance of writ of execution. The writ was issued
on May 3, 1991 and served upon A on May 9, 1991 and a notice of levy was annotated in the title of A on
May 31, 1991.

However the subject land was sold to X and the sale was registered on May 21, 1991, 10 days before the
notice of levy.

X then resold the land to Z. Z claims he found no encumbrances or annotations on the title, thus he is a
purchaser in good faith and for value.

Question:

Whether or not the registration of the notice of levy had produced constructive notice that would bind the
3rd persons despite the failure of RD to annotate the same in the certificates of title?

Answer:

Yes the levy of a judgment debtor creates a lien, which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very
dissolution of the attachment of the levy itself.

Prior registration of the lien creates a preference, since the act of registration is the operative act to
convey and affect the land. Said lien continues until the debt is paid or the sale is had under an execution
issued on the judgment or until the judgment is satisfied or the attachment is discharged or vacated in the
same manner provided by law.

Under no law is it stated that an attachment shall be discharge upon sale of the property other than under
execution.
TRADERS ROYAL BANK VS IAC

X was able to obtain a writ of preliminary attachment against A pursuant to said writ; the sheriff levied
4600 barrels of alcohol. B filed a complaint in intervention alleging the attached property are owned by B
the case was filed in RTC Pasay , where it rendered unfavourable decision against B.

B instituted before RTC Bulacan its claim of ownership over the properties attached & prayed for
issuance of writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction.

The RTC Bulacan granted the application for injunctive relief?

Q: Should the RTC issue the injunctive relief?

A: Yes

Generally, the rule that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of
a concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having equal power to grant the injunctive relief sought by
injunction, is applied in cases where no third-party claimant is involved, in order to prevent one court from
nullifying the judgment or process of another court of the same rank or category, a power which devolves
upon the proper appellate court. Intervention as a means of protecting the third-party claimant's right in an
attachment proceeding is not exclusive but cumulative and suppletory to the right to bring an independent
suit. The denial or dismissal of a third-party claim to property levied upon cannot operate to bar a
subsequent independent action by the claimant to establish his right to the property even if he failed to
appeal from the order denying his original third-party claim.

In this case the remedy resorted by B as a third part claimant was it filed a separate and independent
action to indicate his claim.
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES LAURA YADNO AND PUGSONG MAT.AN vs THE HEIRS OF
THE LATE SPOUSES MAURO AND ELISA ANCHALES 684 SCRA 106

Spouses Y filed a complaint in RTC Urdaneta for ownership, delivery of possession over a parcel of
land, damages with preliminary injunction and attachment against W, spouses X & spouses Z.

The court rendered the decision in favour of Y which became final & executory, to which a writ of
execution was issued ad a public auction was made.

Spouses Z filed in RTC Baguio an action for injunction & damages with prayer for writ of preliminary
injunction against spouses X, spouses Y & sheriff. Z claimed the sheriff has without any authority from
trial court, indiscriminately levied and conducted a public auction sale of the property under the name of
W. Z argued that W died before the decision was rendered thus W’s property covered became the estate
of her legal heir and cannot be subject to levy.

Subsequently spouses Y filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the RTC Baguio had no jurisdiction
to enjoined RTC Urdaneta since the later court is a court of coordinate jurisdiction.

Q: If you were the Judge will you grant the Motion to Dismiss filed?

A: Yes, I will grant the Motion to Dismiss.

Under the principle of Judicial Stability or the long standing doctrine is that no court has the power to
interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction.
The various trial courts of a province or city, having the same or equal authority, should not, cannot, and
are not permitted to interfere with their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments. A
contrary rule would obviously lead to confusion and seriously hamper the administration of justice.

In this case RTC Baguio having the same or equal authority with RTC Urdaneta, should not, cannot, and
are not permitted to interfere with their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments. A
contrary rule would obviously lead to confusion and seriously hamper the administration of justice.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy