G.R. No. 164196 ; June 22, 2007
Constantino T. Gumaru, petitioner, vs. Quirino State College, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Constantino T. Gumaru, owner of C.T. Gumaru Construction, entered into a construction agreement with respondent Quirino State College. Alleging breach, Gumaru filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The defendants, represented by a private counsel who filed a motion to dismiss, were declared in default for failure to answer. The RTC rendered a judgment in favor of Gumaru, which became final and executory. A writ of execution was subsequently issued, leading to a levy on two parcels of land registered in the name of the state college.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance for the first time after the judgment became final and filed a motion to quash the writ of execution. It argued that the state college was not duly represented, as the OSG was not notified of the proceedings, and that government properties are immune from execution. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the state college, as a corporate body with the power to sue and be sued, could have its properties levied. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, quashing the writ.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of execution issued against the properties of Quirino State College is valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and quashed the writ of execution. The legal logic rests on two primary grounds. First, the judgment itself is void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. Quirino State College, as a state institution, is mandated to be represented by the Office of the Solicitor General in all litigation. The private counsel who initially appeared did so without the OSG’s authority, rendering his appearance unauthorized and invalid. Consequently, the court never acquired jurisdiction over the respondent, making the resulting default judgment and all subsequent proceedings, including the writ of execution, null and void.
Second, even assuming the judgment was valid, the execution was improperly levied against the college’s properties. While the state college has a separate juridical personality, its funds are public in character. The enforcement of a money judgment against a government agency requires a corresponding appropriation, as public funds cannot be seized without the proper legislative allocation. The levy on the college’s real properties, which are devoted to public education—a governmental function—was therefore improper. The proper remedy for Gumaru is to seek satisfaction of the judgment through a claim filed with the Commission on Audit, in accordance with auditing laws governing money claims against the government.