G.R. No. 36564 ; February 9, 1933
THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF APARRI, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TOMASA VICTORINO VIUDA DE LIMGENCO, ET AL., defendants. TOMASA VICTORINO VIUDA DE LIMGENCO, defendant-appellant. CHUA UO, ET AL., intervenors-appellees.

FACTS

The Municipal Government of Aparri and other intervenors (appellees) obtained a final judgment against the debtor Lim Quingsy on December 2, 1929. Subsequently, on January 10, 1930, Tomasa Victorino Viuda de Limgenco (appellant) secured an attachment on Lim Quingsy’s properties and later obtained a final judgment in her favor on July 16, 1930. When the sheriff, acting on the appellant’s instructions, was about to sell the attached properties, the appellees secured a temporary injunction from the trial court, which was later made permanent. The trial court held that the appellees, having a final judgment prior to the appellant’s attachment, were entitled to preference under Article 1924 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE

Whether the appellees, as prior judgment creditors, are entitled to an injunction to prevent the sale of the debtor’s properties to satisfy a subsequent judgment creditor’s execution.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and vacated the permanent injunction. While the appellees, as prior judgment creditors, may have a preference under Article 1924 of the Civil Code over the funds realized from the sale of the debtor’s properties, this preference does not give them the right to enjoin the sheriff’s sale. Injunction is not the proper remedy to enforce such a preference. The proper course is to allow the sale to proceed and then assert their preferential right to the proceeds in the hands of the sheriff. The costs were assessed against the appellees.

AI Generated by Armztrong.