Po Pauco Vs Siguenza - G.R. No. 29295. October 22, 1928

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 29295. October 22, 1928.]

J. M. PO PAUCO, plaintiff, vs. DOLORES SIGUENZA, ET AL., defendants. WISE & CO.,
intervenor-appellant.
Block, Johnston & Greenbaum for the intervenor.
Roman J. Lacson for receiver-appellee National Bank.
SYLLABUS
1.
"SHERIFF;" RECEIVER. A sheriff, in a sense, is a judicial officer of a general
character, who is not appointed in any particular judicial case; the sheriff is an officer who
exercises or may exercise his functions within the limits of his jurisdiction. A receiver, on the
other hand, is a special officer appointed in connection with and in a particular case or
action, and whose duties are limited to his sphere of action and do not extend further than
the case in which he is appointed.
2.
ID.; ID. While the funds in the hands of a sheriff may be within the reach of
processes coming from other judicial proceedings, such is not the case with respect to those
under the custody of a receiver. Those who have any claim to property or sums in the
possession of a receiver, must appear in the same proceeding in which said receiver
discharges his duties, and there, by motion or petition, allege and prove their claims.
DECISION
ROMUALDEZ, J p:
In this case, J. M. Po Pauco obtained final judgment in his favor against Dolores Siguenza and
Mariano Aguilar for the sum of P72,278.01, both parties agreeing to deduct therefrom the
sum of P13,007.46 which is the net value of the sugar cane belonging to said defendants
and attached by the plaintiff and manufactured by the Philippine National Bank, the receiver
of the said product. By virtue of said judgment and agreement the court issued a writ of
execution for the remaining sum of P59,270.55 on November 19, 1926.
In another civil case before the same court, No. 6416, Wise & Co., Ltd., had on October 18,
1926 obtained judgment against the herein plaintiff J. M. Po Pauco for the sum of P10,572.80
with legal interest thereon, execution of said judgment having been ordered in those
proceedings, which has not yet, even partially, been paid.
On October 23, 1927, Wise & Co., Ltd., intervened in this case praying that the Philippine
National Bank, the receiver of the said sum of P13,007.46, be ordered to satisfy the
judgment in favor of the said petitioner Wise & Co., Ltd., against J. M. Po Pauco, out of the
sum deposited with it, Po Pauco's right and interest in the judgment of this case now before
us having been preliminarily attached in civil case No. 6416, on August 6, 1926.
Opposition was filed to said petition by the Philippine National Bank alleging that said bank
has a preferential right over the surplus of the sale of the sugar delivered to it as receiver,
and also that the Hibila Trading Corporation obtained judgment against the said J. M. Po
Pauco, in civil case No. 3197 of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, holding that
the rights of the Hibila Trading Corporation over the sugar harvest of 1923-1924 and 19241925 of the spouses Dolores Siguenza and Mariano Aguilar in the San Agustin Estate, are
preferential over those of J. M. Po Pauco and, therefore, the latter is not at all entitled to any
of the surplus remaining from the sale of said sugar; and that said Hibila Trading Corporation
is an interested party which must be summoned before the motion of Wise & Co., Ltd., can
be heard, which corporation must institute an ordinary action to establish whatever right it
may have to the surplus of the sugar in question.
The Court of First Instance of Iloilo denied the motion of Wise & Co., Ltd., granting it
permission to institute an action against the Philippine National Bank and the Hibila Trading
Corporation in order to determine which has the better right to the net proceeds of the sale
of said sugar.
Wise & Co., Ltd., appeals from said ruling making several assignments of error.
It should not be forgotten that the sum mentioned is in the custody of a receiver and not of a
sheriff. The sheriff is a court officer of a general character who is not appointed for a certain
judicial case; the sheriff is an officer who exercises or can exercise his function within the
limits of his jurisdiction. A receiver, on the other hand, is a special officer, appointed in
relation to and within a certain case or action, and whose duties are limited to his sphere of
action, and do not extend further than the case in which he was appointed.
For this reason, while the funds in the custody of a sheriff may be within the reach of
processes coming from other judicial proceedings, such is not the case with respect to those
under the custody of a depositary. From which it follows that those who, as in the present
case, have any claim to property or sums in the possession of a receiver, must appear in the
same proceeding in which said receiver discharges his duties, and there, by motion or
petition, allege and prove their claims.
The order appealed from is reversed and it is ordered that this proceeding be remanded to
the court of origin in order that, without the necessity of commencing a new action, the
interested parties be given an opportunity to set forth and prove their alleged preferential
rights over the sum in controversy.
Without any special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Po Pauco Vs Siguenza - G.R. No. 29295. October 22, 1928

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Po Pauco Vs Siguenza - G.R. No. 29295. October 22, 1928

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Po Pauco Vs Siguenza - G.R. No. 29295. October 22, 1928

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 29295. October 22, 1928.]

You might also like