GR 86301; (January, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 86301 ; January 23, 1990
SPOUSES JULIAN SY and ROSA Q. TAN, petitioners, vs. HON. JAIME D. DISCAYA, JARDINE-MANILA FINANCE, INC., and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, respondents.
FACTS
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch XIII, rendered a money judgment against petitioner Julian Sy Bang and others in Civil Case No. 39816. Upon motion, execution pending appeal was granted. The sheriff levied on a parcel of land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-28294 of Lucena City, annotating a notice of levy. The property is registered in the name of petitioner Rosa Q. Tan.
Petitioners filed a complaint in the RTC of Lucena (Civil Case No. 88-109) against the judgment creditor, Jardine-Manila Finance, Inc., and the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal. They sought cancellation of the notice of levy and an injunction against the auction sale, alleging the land was Rosa Q. Tan’s paraphernal property and thus not liable for her husband’s personal obligation. They alternatively argued that even if conjugal, the debt did not benefit the conjugal partnership.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC of Lucena correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the proper remedy was to file an action in the Pasig RTC which issued the writ of execution.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the RTC of Lucena had jurisdiction over the independent action. The Court clarified the remedies available to a third-party claimant under Section 17, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. A claimant may: (1) invoke the supervisory power of the court issuing the writ for a summary determination of whether the sheriff acted correctly in levying on the property; or (2) avail of the “terceria” remedy by serving an affidavit of title on the officer and the judgment creditor. Critically, these remedies are without prejudice to the claimant’s right to vindicate his claim by “any proper action.”
The “proper action” referred to in the rules is an independent action distinct from a claim before the execution court or a damage suit against the sheriff. Its object is the recovery of ownership or possession of the property. Since petitioner Rosa Q. Tan was a stranger to the Pasig case, she could not be compelled to litigate her claim of ownership solely in that court. A sheriff acts beyond his authority when he levies on property not unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor. An independent action to resolve title is necessary and does not constitute an encroachment on the jurisdiction of a coordinate court. Therefore, the RTC of Lucena erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The case was remanded for further proceedings.