Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

ISIDRO TAN (alias TAN LIT), petitioner, vs.


First Instance of Manila, and TIU CHAY (alias TAN KIA), respondents.
G.R. No. L-43721 June 15, 1935

FACTS: Tan Lit and Tan Kia won 50k in a sweepstakes. However, Tan Lit kept the
whole amount to himself. Thus, Kia filed a recovery suit for the 22.5k. After filing a 5k
bond, Kia obtained an attachment from the Judge.

Tan Lit later managed to have the writ dissolved by posting a counter-bond of
5k. After the attachment was dissolved, he withdrew 23,500 from PNB (most this
amount was previously attached).

After an application by Kia, the judge again issued another order requiring Tan
Lit to pay an additional 12k counterbond. Failing to do this, Tan Lit was held in
contempt and was held in confinement until he posted the 12k.

Tan Lit now argues that:

1. the preliminary attachment was irregular and illegal
3. the Judges order to pay an additional counterbond was also illegal, being a
sequel to the first

ISSUE: WON the preliminary attachment was proper. YES

WON the order to pay an additional counterbond was proper. NO


1st preliminary attachment was issued in conformity with law

The Court held so because apparently all the requisites for its issuance had
been complied with.

Judge lost jurisdiction over the property when he allowed the initial
counterbond of 5k
From the moment the Judge authorized the Tan Lit to put up the counter bond
of P5,000 and from the moment Tan Lit filed said counter bond in order to be able to
withdraw his deposit in the Philippine National Bank, it can be said that Judge lost
jurisdiction over the said property.

However, the judge retained jurisdiction to resolve the principal question of

WON Tan Kia was entitled to the relief prayed for in his complaint.
Note: this ruling is found in G.R No. L-43772 which is a simultaneous sequel to
the case

Purpose of the bond

When the property release from an attachment cannot be returned by the party
who secured its release upon the filing of a bond, the bond takes the place of said
property, that is, answers therefor, because the law on the points is couched in the
following language: "the obligation aforesaid standing in place of the property so