Uy Jr. vs.

CA Facts: The controversy in this case arose from 2 civil cases: 1 case: was filed by petitioner Uy against Sy Tuk Tat for sum of money, damages with prelim attachment. The Court issued a writ of prelim attachment and appointed Cabang to implement the said writ. On April 12, 1982, Cabang and co. effected a physical and actual count of the items and merchandise pointed to by the Ting Family rd as having been taken from the Mansion Emporium. A 3 party claim was filed by Ting and Hon asserting the ownership of the said properties. They further filed a motion to dissolve the writ of prelim attachment. TC rendered judgment by default in favor of Uy. 2 case: Ting and Hon filed a complaint for damages and an application for prelim injuction against Uy and Cabang in which the Court ruled to maintain status quo. Uy filed a motion to quash/dissolve status quo order on the ground that, the court has no jurisdiction to interfere with properties under custodia legis on orders of a coequal court and co-ordinate jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs complaint is for the recovery of damages. The court denied said motion. Ting and Hon then filed a motion for prelim attachment which was granted by the court. Uy filed a motion to quash/dismiss said order and motion for prelim hearing on affirmative defenses as a motion to dismiss which were all denied by the court. CA: dismissed the petition Issue: WON, properties levied and seized by virtue of a writ of attachment and later by a writ of execution, were under custodia legis and therefore not subject to the rd jurisdiction of another co-equal court where a 3 party claimant claimed ownership of the same properties. Held: 1. In Manila Herald Publishing v. Ramos, the Court ruled that while it is true that property in custody of the law may not be interfered with, without the permission of the proper court, this rule is confined to cases where the property belongs to the defendant or one in which the defendant has propriety interest. But when the sheriff, acting beyond the bounds of his office seizes a strangers property, the rule does not apply and interference with the custody is not interference with another courts order of attachment. 2. The power of the court in the execution of judgments extends only over properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment
nd st

debtor. The levy by the sheriff of a property by virtue of a writ of attachment may be considered as made under the authority of the court only when the property levied upon belongs to the rd defendant. Should a 3 party appear to claim the property levied upon by the sheriffsuch claim should be a subject of a separate and independent action. 3. The sale of the disputed properties at public auction, in satisfaction of a judgment of a coequal court does not render the case moot and academic. Attachment and sale of properties rd belonging to 3 person is void because such properties cannot be attached and sold at public auction for the purpose of enforcing a judgment against judgment debtor. 4. The petitioner cant complain that they were denied their day in court when RTC issued writ of attachment ex parte, since there is nothing in the ROC which makes notice and hearing indispensable and mandatory requisites in its issuance. In addition, Uys motion to quash or nd discharge the questioned attachment in the 2 case is in effect a motion for reconsideration which cured any defect of absence of notice.