SPOUSES ROBERTO BUADO and VENUS BUADO

v.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Former Division, and
ROMULO NICOL

G.R. No. 145222 April 24, 2009

PONENTE: TINGA, J.:

FACTS:

Spouses Roberto and Venus Buado (petitioners) filed a

complaint for damages against Erlinda Nicol (Erlinda) with the RTC of
Bacoor, Cavite. Said action originated from the criminal offense of
slander filed against her by petitioners. The trial court rendered a
decision ordering Erlinda to pay damages. Said decision was affirmed,
successively, by the Court of Appeals and this Court. It became final
and executory.

The trial court issued a writ of execution. Finding Erlinda Nicol’s

personal properties insufficient to satisfy the judgment, the Deputy
Sheriff issued a notice of levy on real property on execution addressed
to the Register of Deeds of Cavite. Two (2) days before the public
auction sale on 28 January 1993, an affidavit of third-party claim from
one Arnulfo F. Fulo was received by the deputy sheriff prompting
petitioners to put up a sheriff’s indemnity bond. The auction sale
proceeded with petitioners as the highest bidder and a certificate of
sale was issued in favor of petitioners. Romulo Nicol (respondent), the
husband of Erlinda Nicol, filed a complaint for annulment of certificate
of sale and damages with preliminary injunction against petitioners
and the deputy sheriff. Respondent, as plaintiff therein, alleged that
the defendants, now petitioners, connived and directly levied upon and
execute his real property without exhausting the personal properties
of Erlinda Nicol.

In response, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds

of lack of jurisdiction and that they had acted on the basis of a valid
writ of execution. Petitioners claimed that respondent should have filed
the case with Branch 19 where the judgment originated and which
issued the order of execution, writ of execution, notice of levy and
notice of sheriff’s sale. In an Order dated 18 April 1994, the RTC
dismissed respondent’s complaint and ruled that Branch 19 has
jurisdiction over the case. Respondent moved for reconsideration but
it was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court
and held that Branch 21 has jurisdiction to act on the complaint filed
by appellant. Petitioners maintain that Branch 19 retained jurisdiction
over its judgment to the exclusion of all other co-ordinate courts for its
execution and all incidents thereof. Petitioners insist that respondent,
who is the husband of the judgment debtor, is not the "third party"
contemplated in Section 17 (now Section 16), Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court, hence a separate action need not be filed. Respondent on the
other hand merely avers that the decision of the Court of Appeals is
supported by substantial evidence and in accord with law and
jurisprudence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of

discretion in remanding the case for further proceedings.

RULING:

Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which reads:

Sec. 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person.

If the property levied on is claimed by any person other than the

judgment obligor or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of
his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds
of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the
levy and a copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the officer shall
not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment obligee, on
demand of the officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify
the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property
levied on. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be
determined by the court issuing the writ of execution. No claim for
damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced
against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred
twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.

The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or
keeping of the property, to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third
person from vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action,
or prevent the judgment obligee from claiming damages in the same
or a separate action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous
or plainly spurious claim.
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the
Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond
shall not be required, and in case the sheriff or levying officer is sued
for damages as a result of the levy, he shall be represented by the
Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the actual damages
adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of
such funds as may be appropriated for the purpose.

Apart from the remedy of terceria available to a third-party

claimant or to a stranger to the foreclosure suit against the sheriff or
officer effecting the writ by serving on him an affidavit of his title and a
copy thereof upon the judgment creditor, a third-party claimant may
also resort to an independent separate action, the object of which is
the recovery of ownership or possession of the property seized by the
sheriff, as well as damages arising from wrongful seizure and
detention of the property. If a separate action is the recourse, the third-
party claimant must institute in a forum of competent jurisdiction an
action, distinct and separate from the action in which the judgment is
being enforced, even before or without need of filing a claim in the
court that issued the writ.

A third-party claim must be filed a person other than the

judgment debtor or his agent. In other words, only a stranger to the
case may file a third-party claim.

The filing of a separate action by respondent is proper and

jurisdiction is thus vested on Branch 21. Petitioners failed to show that
the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in
remanding the case toBranch 21 for further proceedings.