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 to recover a truck that was sold at public auction by the sheriff in favor of Capalla, despite del Rosario’s third-party claim. The trial court rendered an alternative judgment ordering Capalla to return the truck in the same condition as when it was attached or pay its value of P1,200, plus damages. Upon motion, the court amended the judgment, relieving Capalla of the obligation to pay damages and costs, but ordering him to deliver the truck to the sheriff for return to del Rosario. Capalla complied, but del Rosario refused to accept the truck, alleging it was not in the same condition. Consequently, the trial court 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 in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion 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 (return the property or pay its value), it logically had jurisdiction to order its execution in the alternative manner provided by law. When the judgment obligor (Capalla) opted to return the property but the judgment obligee (del Rosario) refused acceptance due to its deteriorated condition, the court properly authorized the sale of the property. The proceeds from the sale would be applied to satisfy the pecuniary alternative of the judgment. The Court noted that Capalla could have avoided the sale by paying the monetary value of the judgment. Therefore, the act of issuing the supplementary writ of execution was within the court’s jurisdiction and not a proper subject of certiorari.