GR 26635; (May, 1927) (Digest)
G.R. No. 26635, May 3, 1927
NICANOR JACINTO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CONRADO DE LEON, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Ponente: J. Romualdez
FACTS
Nicanor Jacinto (plaintiff) filed an action for damages against Sheriff Conrado de Leon and his sureties. The claim arose from the sheriff’s failure to retain a portion of the proceeds from the sale of property belonging to judgment debtor F.W. Carpenter, which was attached and sold to satisfy a judgment in favor of Carl Hess in Civil Case No. 24607. Prior to the sale, Jacinto presented a sworn claim to the sheriff, requesting the retention of up to P19,500 from the proceeds, based on his own credit against Carpenter evidenced by a public instrument dated December 29, 1922. However, the sheriff proceeded with the sale and delivered the full proceeds to Hess. Jacinto’s credit against Carpenter, as stipulated, was payable on December 15, 1923, and was therefore not yet due when he filed his claim with the sheriff on November 16, 1923. The trial court ruled in favor of Jacinto, ordering the sheriff and his sureties to pay damages.
ISSUE
Whether the sheriff was legally obligated to comply with Jacinto’s request to retain a portion of the sale proceeds based on a credit that was not yet due at the time of the claim.
RULING
NO. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that for a credit to be considered “preferred” under the provisions of the Civil Code (specifically Article 1924), it must already be due and demandable. Jacinto’s credit, payable on December 15, 1923, was not yet due when he asserted his claim on November 16, 1923. The fact that his credit was evidenced by a public instrument dated prior to Hess’s judgment did not, by itself, confer a preferential status. The legal provisions on preference of credits apply only to obligations that are already demandable. Since Jacinto’s credit was not due, he had no right to demand the retention of the proceeds, and the sheriff incurred no liability for failing to do so. The motion for reconsideration was denied.
This is AI Generated. Powered by Armztrong.