GR L 61; (October, 1945) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-61; October 16, 1945
JUAN PALACIOS, administrator of the estate of the deceased Josefa Aguirre, petitioner, vs. IÑIGO S. DAZA, Judge of First Instance of Batangas, and THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF BATANGAS, respondents.
FACTS
The Provincial Government of Batangas instituted expropriation proceedings against Josefa Aguirre. On August 28, 1940, the Court of First Instance of Batangas rendered a decision fixing the amount the plaintiff (the Provincial Government) should pay Aguirre for the expropriated land. An August 26, 1941, writ of execution for the collection of this amount was not complied with before the outbreak of World War II. On July 24, 1945, an alias writ of execution was issued, properties of the plaintiff were attached, and a public auction sale was set for September 15, 1945. On August 21, 1945, the plaintiff filed a motion to suspend the alias writ, invoking the debt moratorium under Executive Order No. 25 (issued November 18, 1944), which suspended payment of debts “contracted after December 31, 1941.” The defendant’s representative opposed, arguing the debt was contracted on August 28, 1940, and thus not covered by E.O. No. 25. On August 28, 1945, respondent Judge suspended the writ’s effects, citing E.O. No. 25 as authority. Petitioner, as administrator of Aguirre’s estate, filed this certiorari petition to annul the judge’s order.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge correctly suspended the alias writ of execution based on a debt moratorium.
RULING
Yes, the suspension order was correct, though based on the wrong executive order. The debt, contracted on August 28, 1940, was not covered by Executive Order No. 25, which applied only to debts contracted after December 31, 1941. However, the debt moratorium provision was amended by Executive Order No. 32 (issued March 10, 1945), which eliminated the time limit and suspended the “[e]nforcement of payment of all debts and other monetary obligations payable within the Philippines,” with specified exceptions not applicable here. Therefore, the debt in question is covered by the terms of Executive Order No. 32. The Court concluded the order, though erroneously invoking E.O. No. 25, was well-taken by virtue of E.O. No. 32. The suspension shall continue pending action by the Commonwealth Government. The petition was dismissed without costs.