G.R. No. L-25, December 7, 1901
JUAN PIÑEYRO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JUAN UTOR, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
The plaintiff, Juan Piñeyro, obtained a preliminary attachment against the defendants by presenting a document evidencing a debt owed to him. Subsequently, when he filed his formal complaint as required by Article 1393 of the Law of Civil Procedure, he did not seek to collect the stated debt. Instead, he prayed for the rescission of the contract of sale from which the debt originated. The court below dissolved the preliminary attachment, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether a complaint filed pursuant to Article 1393 of the Law of Civil Procedure to maintain a preliminary attachment must be one for the collection of a debt, or if a complaint for the rescission of a contract is sufficient.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court dissolving the attachment. The Court ruled that the complaint required under Article 1393 must be one for the collection of a debt, not for the rescission of a contract. The authority to grant a preliminary attachment under Article 1379 is limited to actions seeking to secure the payment of a debt. The procedural mechanisms for attachment, such as the requirement to present a document proving the debt (Article 1382) and the defendant’s right to discharge the attachment by paying the claimed sum (Article 1387), are incompatible with an action for rescission, where the primary relief sought is the recovery of a specific thing, not the payment of a monetary obligation. Furthermore, the law provides specific remedies, like receivership, for actions concerning property ownership, but no similar provision exists for attaching all of a defendant’s property in a rescission case. Since the plaintiff filed a complaint for rescission and not for debt collection, the dissolution of the attachment was proper. The decision was affirmed with costs against the appellant.