G.R. No. L-11403; October 28, 1918
SANTIAGO CODESAL and AQUILINA OCAMPO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ROMANA ASCUE, administratrix of the estate of Pedro Martinez, deceased, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Romana Ascue, as administratrix of the estate of Pedro Martinez, obtained a money judgment against Matias Caoibes et al. in Civil Case No. 7373. To enforce the judgment, the sheriff attached a parcel of land. Santiago Codesal and Aquilina Ocampo, claiming ownership of the attached land, notified the sheriff of their title. Despite the notice and after Ascue posted the required indemnity bond, the sheriff persisted in proceeding with the sale of the property under execution. Codesal and Ocampo filed an action for injunction to restrain the sheriff from selling the land, arguing it was their property and not liable for the debt of the judgment debtor. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction and, after hearing, made the injunction permanent, holding that the plaintiffs were the absolute owners of the land.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the facts alleged in the complaint justified the issuance of (a) a preliminary injunction and (b) a permanent injunction.
2. Whether the plaintiffs-appellees are the owners of the land in question.

RULING:
1. Yes, the issuance of both preliminary and permanent injunction was justified. The Supreme Court held that under Section 164 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure), injunction is an appropriate equitable remedy when a sheriff threatens to sell the property of a person not a party to the judgment to satisfy the debt of another. A preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo is proper when the legal questions are grave and the injury to the moving party outweighs any inconvenience to the opposing party. A permanent injunction is warranted when the plaintiff’s ownership is established, as it prevents an unauthorized sale that would cast a cloud on the title.
2. Yes, the plaintiffs-appellees are the owners of the land. The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding, based on a preponderance of evidence, that Codesal and Ocampo are the owners in fee simple of the disputed parcel. A sheriff has no authority to attach or sell property not belonging to the judgment debtor. The writ of execution provides no justification for taking the property of a third party. The plaintiffs were not required to allow the sale and then seek redress on the sheriff’s bond; they could properly seek injunction to protect their property rights.

The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.