G.R. No. 118830 ; February 24, 2003
SPOUSES ALFREDO AND ENCARNACION CHING, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, and FERDINAND J. GUERRERO, SENIOR DEPUTY SHERIFF, MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Family Savings Bank filed a collection case against Cheng Ban Yek & Co., Inc. and petitioner Alfredo Ching as surety with the CFI of Manila. The bank obtained a writ of preliminary attachment, and Deputy Sheriff Ferdinand Guerrero levied upon a conjugal property of spouses Alfredo and Encarnacion Ching. The spouses filed a petition in the CFI of Rizal to declare the levy illegal, but it was dismissed because the property was under the custody (custodia legis) of the Manila court. The Manila court later rendered a summary judgment for the bank, and, despite an appeal, granted execution pending appeal, leading to the auction sale of the conjugal property to the bank in 1983.
To prevent consolidation of the sale, petitioners filed a second annulment case with the RTC of Makati, seeking to nullify the levy and sale, reiterating the argument that the sheriff could not levy on conjugal property. While this case was pending, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Manila court’s summary judgment, and this decision became final. The RTC Makati eventually ruled in favor of the spouses, declaring the levy and sale null and void. The Court of Appeals reversed this, holding the Makati case was barred by res judicata due to the prior Rizal and Manila cases.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court of Makati had jurisdiction to nullify the levy and sale on execution of the conjugal property ordered by the Court of First Instance of Manila.

RULING

No, the RTC of Makati had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, but on a different legal ground: lack of jurisdiction of the Makati court. The core legal principle is that a co-equal or coordinate court cannot interfere with or nullify the judgments, orders, or execution proceedings of another court of concurrent jurisdiction. This long-standing doctrine prevents confusion and ensures orderly administration of justice.
Here, the CFI of Manila, in the collection case, issued the orders for preliminary attachment, execution, and the consequent levy and sale. Therefore, the subject property was under the custody of the law (custodia legis) of the Manila court. Any question regarding the validity or regularity of these proceedings—including the claim that the levy was invalid because it involved conjugal property—must be raised before and resolved by the Manila court itself. The Makati RTC, being a court of equal rank, had no authority to annul the Manila court’s processes. While a third-party claimant like Encarnacion Ching may generally file a separate action under Rule 39, this does not permit a separate court to invalidate the execution orders of the rendering court. The proper recourse was to seek relief in the Manila proceedings, which Alfredo Ching did by filing motions raising the conjugal nature of the property. Thus, the Makati case should have been dismissed from the outset for lack of jurisdiction.