G.R. No. L-10599, December 24, 1915
VICENTA JALBUENA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SALVADOR LIZARRAGA, et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
On May 22, 1903, Salvador Lizarraga, a judgment creditor, caused the sheriff of Iloilo to levy upon an old sugar-mill as the property of the judgment debtor, Ildefonso Doronila, who was the husband of the plaintiff, Vicenta Jalbuena. Doronila himself informed the sheriff that the mill belonged to him. The mill was sold at public auction in July 1903, and the purchaser later sold it to Lopez. The plaintiff, Jalbuena, instituted this action on November 26, 1913, seeking to recover the mill or its value, claiming it was her exclusive property and that her husband had no interest in it. The trial court dismissed her complaint. It was established that Jalbuena knew of the levy and the impending sale of the mill as her husband’s property at the time but did not protest or assert her claim until after the property had been sold to Lopez.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiff, Vicenta Jalbuena, is estopped from asserting her claim of ownership over the sugar-mill after knowingly standing by without protest while it was levied upon and sold as the property of her husband.

RULING:
Yes, the plaintiff is estopped from asserting her claim. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that an execution is an order to sell the property of the judgment debtor. If the sheriff sells another’s property, the true owner may generally recover it, unless the owner has lost that right by his or her own conduct. The doctrine of estoppel applies when a person with title to or interest in property knowingly stands by and suffers it to be sold under a judgment without asserting that right or making it known to potential bidders. The plaintiff had full knowledge that the property was to be sold for her husband’s debt and failed to communicate her claim. By her omission, she intentionally led the purchaser to believe the mill was her husband’s property, and she cannot now be permitted to falsify that situation. The cases cited by the appellant were distinguished as they involved instances where claims were promptly made upon the sheriff, unlike the present case where the plaintiff remained silent until long after the sale.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.