GR L 9855; (April, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9855; April 29, 1957
MELCHOR MANIEGO, petitioner-appellant, vs. RICARDO L. CASTELO, in his capacity as Provincial Sheriff for the Province of Nueva Ecija, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
Melchor Maniego obtained a judgment against his tenant, Daniel Jaime. The Provincial Sheriff levied and sold at public auction 145 cavans and 11 kilos of palay belonging to Jaime, which were raised from his landholding as Maniego’s tenant. Maniego was the highest bidder, paid the required fees, and demanded delivery of the palay. The Sheriff refused to deliver the palay, insisting on deducting 25% thereof, which he claimed was exempt from execution under Section 19 of Republic Act No. 1199 (the Agricultural Tenancy Act). The Sheriff’s refusal was further supported by an order from the Justice of the Peace Court commanding the release of the said 25% in favor of the tenant, Jaime. Maniego filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Sheriff to deliver the entire palay purchased at the auction. The Court of First Instance denied the writ, holding the exemption could not be waived. Maniego appealed, arguing the exemption was a personal right that was waived by the tenant’s failure to claim it prior to the sale.
ISSUE
Whether the 25% exemption of the tenant’s share from lien or attachment under Section 19 of Republic Act No. 1199 can be waived, and consequently, whether the Sheriff can be compelled by mandamus to deliver the exempted portion to the landlord-purchaser at the execution sale.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, denying the writ of mandamus. The Court ruled that the 25% exemption provided by Section 19 of Republic Act No. 1199 is a reservation of law for the exclusive benefit of the tenant and his family’s sustenance from one harvest to the next. Such an exemption is a matter of public policy designed to protect the tenant’s basic right to live; therefore, any waiver thereof would be contrary to public policy and null and void under Article 6 of the Civil Code. The exemption cannot be waived, and the tenant’s claim after the Sheriff’s sale did not constitute a waiver. Consequently, the Sheriff’s levy and sale of the exempt portion were illegal and unenforceable. Maniego, as the landlord, could not plead ignorance of the inclusion of the exempted portion. The Sheriff was not compellable by mandamus to deliver the exempted palay.