G.R. No. 29105 , March 3, 1928
SERGIO CAPALLA, petitioner, vs. FERNANDO SALAS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, and TEODORO DEL ROSARIO, respondents.

FACTS

Teodoro del Rosario filed a complaint against Sergio Capalla and the provincial sheriff of Iloilo to recover a truck that was sold at public auction by the sheriff in favor of Capalla pursuant to a writ of execution, despite del Rosario’s third-party claim. The trial court rendered an alternative judgment ordering Capalla to return the truck to del Rosario in the same condition as when it was attached or, in default thereof, to pay its value of P1,200. Capalla delivered the truck to the sheriff, but del Rosario refused to accept it, alleging it was not in the same condition. Consequently, the trial judge issued a supplementary writ of execution authorizing the sheriff to sell the truck at public auction and apply the proceeds to satisfy the monetary alternative of the judgment. Capalla filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed this petition for certiorari, arguing that the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering the sale of the truck.

ISSUE

Did the trial judge act without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing a supplementary writ of execution ordering the sale at public auction of the truck subject of an alternative judgment?

RULING

No. The petition for certiorari is denied.

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge did not exceed his jurisdiction. Since the court had jurisdiction to render an alternative judgment (either return the property or pay its value), it logically had jurisdiction to order its execution in the alternative manner. When the judgment obligor (Capalla) opted to return the truck but the judgment obligee (del Rosario) refused acceptance because the truck was not in the same condition, the court properly authorized the sale of the truck to satisfy the pecuniary alternative of the judgment. The sale was a means to execute the judgment for the payment of P1,200, using the very property that was the subject of the suit. Capalla could have avoided the sale by paying the judgment amount. Therefore, the trial judge acted within his jurisdiction, and certiorari does not lie.