0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
27 Ansichten6 Seiten
This summarizes two court cases:
1) Mangila vs. CA - The court ruled the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the petitioner when it implemented the writ of attachment. The summons was served three months after the writ was implemented, which is required to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant.
2) Carlos vs. Sandoval - The court found the Court of Appeals properly complied with hearing requirements before ruling on the attachment bond. Both parties were notified and able to file comments, satisfying due process.
This summarizes two court cases:
1) Mangila vs. CA - The court ruled the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the petitioner when it implemented the writ of attachment. The summons was served three months after the writ was implemented, which is required to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant.
2) Carlos vs. Sandoval - The court found the Court of Appeals properly complied with hearing requirements before ruling on the attachment bond. Both parties were notified and able to file comments, satisfying due process.
This summarizes two court cases:
1) Mangila vs. CA - The court ruled the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the petitioner when it implemented the writ of attachment. The summons was served three months after the writ was implemented, which is required to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant.
2) Carlos vs. Sandoval - The court found the Court of Appeals properly complied with hearing requirements before ruling on the attachment bond. Both parties were notified and able to file comments, satisfying due process.
exporter of seafoods with an outlet in Guam. Respondent is Manager and President of Air Sift internatioanl, a freight service. Petitioner contracted the services of respondent. Petitioner failed to pay respondent for three shipment Despite several demands petitioner never paid respondent, thus prompted the latter to file for collection of sum of money. August 1, 1988, Sheriff filed his return showing that summons was not served on petitioner, because petitioners transfered residence and later on was found out that Petitioner had left the Philippines for Guam. Respondent filed a motion for WPA, for petitioners departure was done with intent to defraud creditors. Sept 26, 1988, court issued an order of WPA. It was served on petitioners help at Pampanga. Petitioner filed an urgent motion to discharge attachment. Pointing out that she had not been served a copy of the complaint and summon. The court she said had not acquired jurisdiction over her person. Jan 26, 1989, summons was served on petitioner. Issue: WON Trial court had acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner and is the service of the writ valid. Held:
Invalid, did not acquire jurisdiction.
when the sheriff or other proper officer commences implementation of the writ of attachment, it is essential that he serve on the defendant not only a copy of the applicants affidavit and attachment bond, and of the order of attachment, as explicitly required by Section 5 of Rule 57, but also the summons addressed to said defendant as well as a copy of the complaint. the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves three stages: first, the court issues the order granting the application; second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and third, the writ is implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained. However, once the implementation of the writ commences, the court must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant. In the instant case, the Writ of Preliminary Attachment was issued on September 27, 1988 and implemented on October 28, 1988. However, the alias summons was served only on January 26, 1989 or almost three months after the implementation of the writ of attachment. on the day the writ was implemented, the trial court should have, previously or simultaneously with the
implementation of the writ, acquired
jurisdiction over the petitioner. Yet, as was shown in the records of the case, the summons was actually served on petitioner several months after the writ had been implemented. on the day the writ was implemented, the trial court should have, previously or simultaneously with the implementation of the writ, acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner. Yet, as was shown in the records of the case, the summons was actually served on petitioner several months after the writ had been implemented.
CARLOS vs. SANDOVAL
(walay mas taas pa na case ani te? Lol) Facts: Carlos asserted that he was the sole surviving compulsory heir of his parents, Felix and Felipa, who acquired 6 parcels of land during their marriage. His brother, Teofilo (Teofilo), died intestate in 1992. At the time of his death, Teofilo was apparently married to Sandoval, and
cohabiting with her and their child,
respondent Teofilo II. Nonetheless, Carlos alleged in his Complaint that Teofilo and Sandoval were not validly married as they had not obtained any marriage license. Furthermore, Carlos also asserted that Teofilo II could not be considered as Teofilos child. As a result, Carlos concluded that he was also the sole heir of his brother Teofilo, since the latter had died without leaving any heirs. Carlos also claimed that Teofilo, prior to their father Felixs death in 1963, developed a scheme to save the elder Carloss estate from inheritance taxes. Under the scheme, the properties of the father would be transferred to Teofilo who would, in turn, see to it that the shares of the legal heirs are protected and delivered to them. Felix assented to the plan. and the subject properties were transferred in the name of Teofilo. After Teofilos death, Carlos entered into certain agreements with Sandoval in connection with the subject properties. Carlos did so, believing that the latter was the lawful wife of his brother Teofilo. Subsequently though, Carlos discovered that Sandoval and his brother were never validly married, as their marriage was contracted without a marriage license. Carlos now sought to nullify these agreements with Sandoval for want of consideration, the premise for these contracts being non-existent. Carlos likewise prayed for the issuance of the provisional relief of preliminary attachment. The RTC issued an Order dated 7 September 1995 granting the prayer for preliminary attachment.
Shortly thereafter, a Notice of
Garnishment was served upon the Philippine National Bank (PNB) over the deposit accounts maintained by respondents. Respondents filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge the Writ of Attachment. The Court of Appeals found that there was no sufficient cause of action to warrant the preliminary attachment, since Carlos had merely alleged general averments in order to support his prayer. Carlos argues that the Court of Appeals, through the Former Special Fourth Division, could not have resolved the Motion for Judgment on the Attachment Bond since the case had not yet been re-raffled under the two-raffle system for study and report; that the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the motion without conducting any hearing. Issue: whether the Court of Appeals properly complied with the hearing requirement under Section 20, Rule 57 prior to its judgment on the attachment bond. Held: Yes The core questions though lie in the proper interpretation of the condition under Section 20, Rule 57 that reads: Such damages may be awarded only after proper hearing and shall be included in the judgment on the main case. Petitioners assert that there was no proper hearing on the application for damages and that the Court of Appeals had wrongfully acted on the application in that it resolved it prior to the rendition of the main judgment.
Section 20 of Rule 57 requires that
there be a proper hearing before the application for damages on the attachment bond may be granted. The hearing requirement ties with the indispensable demand of procedural due process. Due notice to the adverse party and its surety setting forth the facts supporting the applicant's right to damages and the amount thereof under the bond is essential. No judgment for damages may be entered and executed against the surety without giving it an opportunity to be heard as to the reality or reasonableness of the damages resulting from the wrongful issuance of the writ. In this case, both Carlos and SIDDCOR were duly notified by the appellate court of the Motion for Judgment on the Attachment Bond and were required to file their respective comments thereto. [41] Carlos and SIDDCOR filed their respective comments in opposition to private respondents motion. Clearly, all the relevant parties had been afforded the bare right to be heard on the matter. We rule that the demands of a proper hearing were satisfied as of the time the Court of Appeals rendered assailed judgment on the attachment bond. The due process guarantee has been satisfied in this case.
FILINVEST CREDIT CORP vs.
RELOVA and SALAZAR
Facts: FILINVEST filed a complaint against Rallye Motor Co and Salazar for collection of sum of money with damages and WPA. Salazar executed a promissory note in favor of Rallye in payment of a motor vehicle. To secure the note Salazar executed in favor of Rallye a deed of chattel mortgage. Rallye for valuable consideration assigned all its rights, title and interest to FILINVEST. FILINVEST came to know that Rallye had not delivered the motor vehicle to Salazar. Salazar defaulted in complying with the terms and conditions of the aforesaid promissory note and chattel mortgage. Rallye also refused to pay FILINVEST despite repeated demands. According to FILINVEST, the defendants intentionally, fraudulently and with malice concealed from it the fact that there was no vehicle delivered under the documents negotiated and assigned to it, otherwise, it would not have accepted the negotiation and assignment of the rights and interest covered by the promissory note and chattel mortgage. They are praying for a WPA. More than a year later, defendant Salazar prayed that the writ of preliminary attachment issued ex parte and implemented solely against his property be recalled and/or quashed.
He argued that when he signed the
promissory note and chattel mortgage on May 5, 1977 in favor of RALLYE, FILINVEST was hot vet his creditor or obligee, therefore, he could not be said to have committed fraud when he contracted the obligation on May 5, 1977. Salazar added that as the motor vehicle which was the object of the chattel mortgage and the consideration for the promissory note had admittedly not been delivered to him by RALLYE, his repudiation of the loan and mortgage is more justifiable. Ernesto Salazar, on his part complained that he was himself defrauded, because while he signed a promissory note and chattel mortgage over the motor vehicle which he bought from Rallye Motor, Rallye Motor did not deliver to him the personal property he bought; that the address and existence of Rallye Motor can no longer be found. Issue: WON the court erred in finding that there was no fraud on the part of Salazar, despite evidence in abundance to show the fraud perpetuated by Salazar at the very inception of the contract. Held: We do not agree. Considering the claim of respondent Salazar that Rallye Motors did not deliver the motor vehicle to him, it follows that the Invoice, Exhibit "C", for the motor vehicle and the Receipt, Exhibit "G", for its delivery and both signed by Salazar, Exhibits "C-1 " and "G-1", were fictitious.
It also follows that the Promissory
Note, Exhibit "A", to pay the price of the undelivered vehicle was without consideration and therefore fake; the Chattel Mortgage, Exhibit "B", over the non-existent vehicle was likewise a fraud; the registration of the vehicle in the name of Salazar was a falsity and the assignment of the promissory note by RALLYE with the conforme of respondent Salazar in favor of petitioner over the undelivered motor vehicle was fraudulent and a falsification. Respondent Salazar, knowing that no motor vehicle was delivered to him by RALLYE, executed and committed all the above acts as shown the exhibits enumerated above. He agreed and consented to the assignment by RALLYE of the fictitious promissory note and the fraudulent chattel mortgage, affixing his signature thereto, in favor of petitioner FILINVEST who, in the ordinary course of business, relied on the regularity and validity of the transaction. We rule that the failure of respondent Salazar to disclose the material fact of non-delivery of the motor vehicle, there being a duty on his part to reveal them, constitutes fraud.
ARNOLD ALVA - Petitioners HON. COURT OF APPEALS - Respondents Nature of The Case: Before Us Is A Petition For Review On Certiorari Under Rule 45 of The Rules of Court, As Amended, Assailing The Twin