G.R. No. L-6791; March 27, 1913
Lizarraga Hermanos, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. F.M. Yap Tico, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiffs Lizarraga Hermanos filed an action to determine ownership of certain real property (a warehouse, steam engine, mills, and other equipment) and to secure a permanent injunction restraining defendant Sheriff F.M. Yap Tico from levying upon and selling the property. The plaintiffs’ ownership and right to possession of the property is conceded. The property was purchased by plaintiffs from Secundino Mendezona and his partners, with Mendezona reserving only a right of repurchase. The Sheriff levied upon the property by virtue of an execution against Mendezona. The key dispute is whether the Sheriff levied upon and advertised for sale the corpus of the property itself or merely Mendezona’s right of repurchase. The evidence presented at trial was not brought to the Supreme Court on appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint was sufficient to sustain an injunction against the Sheriff’s levy and sale of the property.

RULING

Yes, the complaint was sufficient. The Court looked to the pleadings and the trial court’s findings, as the evidence was not on appeal. While the complaint contained some general language, the Sheriff’s own answer admitted he was attempting to sell “the property described in the second paragraph of the complaint,” which was the corpus of the property, not merely the right of repurchase. This admission was treated as conclusive on the nature of the levy. Since the Sheriff had no right to levy upon the corpus of the property, but only upon Mendezona’s right of repurchase, the injunction was proper. The complaint, read as a whole and with reference to the Sheriff’s answer, fairly apprised the defendants of the plaintiffs’ claims. The demurrer challenging the complaint’s sufficiency was filed after the Sheriff’s revealing answer. The judgment granting the injunction was affirmed.