GR L 4502; (April, 1909) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4502
LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ROMANA GANZON, defendant-appellee.
April 13, 1909
—
FACTS:
The Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros found that the defendant, Romana Ganzon, was indebted to the plaintiff, La Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, for a final balance of P7,838.62 as of September 12, 1906, with 10% interest. The CFI ordered Ganzon to pay this amount, plus P500 in costs. The court also decreed specific modes of execution:
1. The net profits of the sugar obtained from the attached cane of the defendant should be applied to the payment.
2. If insufficient, the necessary amount from the proceeds of the sale of the defendant’s attached right of repurchase of Hacienda San Jose (which was sold at public auction due to mortgage foreclosure in a prior case) should be applied.
3. The period for the right of repurchase of Hacienda San Jose was suspended from May 10, 1907, until the judgment in this case becomes final, by virtue of its attachment.
The plaintiff-appellant, while accepting the reduced amount of the debt, appealed these three specific provisions of the CFI judgment. The plaintiff argued that the court should not dictate the form of execution, that the attached cane might belong to the plaintiff, that no right of repurchase exists in a foreclosure sale, and that there is no legal basis to suspend the right of repurchase.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in:
1. Ordering the application of net profits from the attached sugar cane to the payment of the debt.
2. Ordering the application of proceeds from the sale of the defendant’s attached right of repurchase of Hacienda San Jose to the payment of the debt.
3. Suspending the period for the exercise of the right of repurchase of Hacienda San Jose.
RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the decision of the trial court on all three points.
1. Regarding the application of net profits from attached sugar cane: The Court ruled that the trial court did not err. Section 436 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly authorizes the court to order the sale and disposition of attached property.
2. Regarding the application of proceeds from the sale of the right of repurchase: The Court also found no error for the same reason (Section 436). While the question of whether a right of repurchase legally exists in a mortgage foreclosure sale was not decided by the lower court and thus not by the Supreme Court, the plaintiff itself initiated the attachment of this right. Having attached it, the plaintiff cannot evade the consequences or efficiency of its own juridical act, and the court acted within its powers under Section 436.
3. Regarding the suspension of the term for the right of repurchase: The Court held that the trial court acted correctly. The attachment of a right implies an inhibition or privation of its exercise. Considering that the right of redemption, being attached, could not be exercised during the period of attachment and while the litigation was pending, the court could, by virtue of the principle that a prescriptive term shall not run against him who cannot act, fix the period during which the legal term for exercising the right should not run.
The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the lower court’s findings and affirmed the judgment, with costs against the appellant.