This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-01-18 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| It bears to stress that the court issuing the writ of execution may enforce its authority only over properties or rights of the judgment debtor, and the sheriff acts properly only when he subjects to execution property undeniably belonging to the judgment debtor. Should the sheriff levy upon the assets of a third person in which the judgment debtor has not even the remotest interest, then he is acting beyond the limits of his authority. A judgment can only be executed or issued against a party to the action, not against one who has not yet had his day in court.[28] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In determining whether the husband is a stranger to the suit, the character of the property must be taken into account. In Mariano v. Court of Appeals,[11] which was later adopted in Spouses Ching v. Court of Appeals,[12] this Court held that the husband of the judgment debtor cannot be deemed a "stranger" to the case prosecuted and adjudged against his wife for an obligation that has redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.[13] On the other hand, in Naguit v. Court of Appeals[14] and Sy v. Discaya,[15] the Court stated that a spouse is deemed a stranger to the action wherein the writ of execution was issued and is therefore justified in bringing an independent action to vindicate her right of ownership over his exclusive or paraphernal property. | |||||