G.R. No. L-4044

W. H. SAMMONS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MACARIO FAVILA, defendant-appellant.

January 10, 1908

—

FACTS:

W. H. Sammons (plaintiff-appellee) filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan against Macario Favila (defendant-appellant), a sheriff, to recover P972.40 in damages. The damages arose from the seizure of Sammons’ property, located in a saloon, under a writ of attachment issued against one Morse.

Initially, Morse and Sammons jointly owned the property. However, on November 25, 1905, Morse sold his entire interest to Sammons through a written instrument. The business license, originally in both their names, was changed to Sammons’ sole name on January 1, 1906. The attachment was levied by the defendant’s deputy on January 13, 1906.

At the time of the levy, Sammons was in possession of the property and claimed to be its sole owner. He exhibited the November 25 contract of purchase and his new business license to the deputy sheriff. Despite this, the attachment proceedings were carried out, the property was seized from the saloon, and subsequently sold.

Sammons, upon being notified of the seizure, engaged a lawyer in Manila. He executed an affidavit of ownership, which he delivered to his lawyer. The lawyer then traveled to Bautista and, according to his testimony, delivered the said affidavit to the deputy sheriff, retaining a copy which he produced at trial. The deputy sheriff admitted receiving the November 25 contract from the lawyer but initially claimed he couldn’t remember, and later denied, receiving any affidavit of ownership.

The lower court ruled in favor of Sammons, awarding him P672.40 with interest and costs. The defendant sheriff appealed this decision.

—

ISSUE:

Did the plaintiff-appellee, W. H. Sammons, sufficiently comply with the requirement of presenting a written claim of ownership to the sheriff as mandated by Section 442 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

—

RULING:

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

The Court held that the evidence strongly supported the lower court’s finding that Sammons had indeed presented a written claim of ownership (an affidavit) to the deputy sheriff. Sammons testified about preparing and swearing to the affidavit and delivering it to his lawyer. The lawyer corroborated this, stating he delivered the affidavit to the deputy sheriff. While the deputy sheriff’s testimony regarding the affidavit was inconsistent (initially couldn’t remember, then denied), the Court found no reason to reverse the lower court’s assessment of this conflicting evidence.

Therefore, the plaintiff-appellee successfully established compliance with Section 442 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires a written claim of ownership when property under attachment is claimed by a third person. The judgment of the court below was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.