Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    AGRA Maniego Vs Castelo Digest

    Uploaded by

    Charles Roger Raya
    This case involved a dispute over 145 cavans and 11 kilos of palay that was seized and sold at a public auction to satisfy a writ of execution against Daniel Jaime, a tenant farmer. The highest bidder, Richard Maniego, paid for the crops but the sheriff, Ricardo Castelo, refused to deliver 25% of the crops, claiming it was exempt from execution under the law. The court upheld the 25% exemption, finding it was intended to ensure tenants and their families had food from one harvest to the next. The exemption could not be waived as that would undermine the tenant's right to sustenance. As the levy and sale of the exempt portion was illegal, the petitioner was not entitled

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    AGRA Maniego Vs Castelo Digest

    Uploaded by

    Charles Roger Raya
    69 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over 145 cavans and 11 kilos of palay that was seized and sold at a public auction to satisfy a writ of execution against Daniel Jaime, a tenant farmer. The highest bidder, Richard Maniego, paid for the crops but the sheriff, Ricardo Castelo, refused to deliver 25% of the crops, claiming it was exempt from execution under the law. The court upheld the 25% exemption, finding it was intended to ensure tenants and their families had food from one harvest to the next. The exemption could not be waived as that would undermine the tenant's right to sustenance. As the levy and sale of the exempt portion was illegal, the petitioner was not entitled

    Original Description:

    agra

    Original Title

    AGRA Maniego vs Castelo Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over 145 cavans and 11 kilos of palay that was seized and sold at a public auction to satisfy a writ of execution against Daniel Jaime, a tenant farmer. The highest bidder, Richard Maniego, paid for the crops but the sheriff, Ricardo Castelo, refused to deliver 25% of the crops, claiming it was exempt from execution under the law. The court upheld the 25% exemption, finding it was intended to ensure tenants and their families had food from one harvest to the next. The exemption could not be waived as that would undermine the tenant's right to sustenance. As the levy and sale of the exempt portion was illegal, the petitioner was not entitled

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    69 views2 pages

    AGRA Maniego Vs Castelo Digest

    Uploaded by

    Charles Roger Raya
    This case involved a dispute over 145 cavans and 11 kilos of palay that was seized and sold at a public auction to satisfy a writ of execution against Daniel Jaime, a tenant farmer. The highest bidder, Richard Maniego, paid for the crops but the sheriff, Ricardo Castelo, refused to deliver 25% of the crops, claiming it was exempt from execution under the law. The court upheld the 25% exemption, finding it was intended to ensure tenants and their families had food from one harvest to the next. The exemption could not be waived as that would undermine the tenant's right to sustenance. As the levy and sale of the exempt portion was illegal, the petitioner was not entitled

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    RICHARD MANIEGO vs RICARDO CASTELO

    G.R. No. L-9855, April 29, 1957

    FACTS: 145 cavans and 11 kilos of palay belonging to Daniel Jaime was raised in his landholding as tenant
    of petitioner was levied upon by the respondent pursuant to a Writ of Execution.

    After due notice and publication required by law, the respondent, thru Deputy of Provincial Sheriff F. G.
    Manahan sold at public auction the 145 cavans 11 kilos of palay belonging to Daniel Jaime.

    Petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction sale who bid P835.80 for the 145 cavans and 11 kilos of
    palay as shown by a certificate issued by Deputy Provincial sheriff F. G. Manahan.

    The petitioner has paid the kilometrage fee and percentage of collection as shown in official Receipt No.
    6289136.

    On February 10, 1955, the petitioner went to the office of the Provincial Sheriff and verbally demanded the
    delivery of the receipt to him of the 145 cavans and 11 kilos of palay which he purchased in the auction
    sale and the indorsement in his favor of the receipts of deposits, so petitioner could withdraw the palay
    from the NG SU Rice Mill where the palay are deposited.

    Provincial Deputy Sheriff F. G. Manahan prepared the indorsement, but the respondent refused to sign the
    said indorsement and likewise refused to deliver to petitioner the receipt of 145 cavans and 11 kilos of
    palay by the latter in the auction sale.

    The respondent was willing to deliver the palay after deducting therefrom 25 per cent thereof which
    respondent claims as exempt from execution under Republic Act No. 1199, Section 19, which fact he knew
    only immediately after the auction sale upon arrival in his office.

    On February 18, 1955, the respondent received an order dated February 16, 1955, of the Justice of the
    Peace Court of San Jose, Nueva Ecija commanding the respondent to release 25 per cent of the 145
    cavans and 11 kilos sold to the petitioner in the auction sale but not yet delivered to petitioner in favor of
    Daniel Jaime.

    The court below held that the tenant having claimed the exemption thus provided, the Sheriff was not
    compellable by mandamus to deliver the exempt portion; that the fact that the tenant laid claim to the
    exemption after the Sheriff's sale had been held did not constitute a waiver of the exemption because the
    same could not under any circumstance, be waived or relinquished. Hence, the petition was dismissed.

    From that judgment the petitioner has appealed to this Court, and argues that, in the absence of statutory
    restriction, the tenant's exemption must be regarded as a personal right that is waived if not interposed in
    due time.

    ISSUE: Whether or not 25 percent of the tenant’s share of the crop is exempted from lien and/or
    attachment.

    HELD: YES. The 25 per cent exemption is a reservation which the law specifically sets aside for the exclusive
    benefit of the tenant and upon which he can readily depend to meet his immediate needs and those of
    his family.

    Being designed to provide sustenance for the tenant and his family from one harvest to the next, a waiver
    of the exemption could amount to a waiver of the tenant's right to live. Any such renunciation would
    therefore be against public policy, and hence null and void even without specific statutory provision.

    The Tenancy Act is a remedial legislation intended to better the lot of the sharecropper by giving him a
    more equitable participation in the produce of the land which he cultivate. Being a remedial statute it
    should be construed so as to further its purpose in accordance with the general intent of the lawmaker.
    The Sheriff's levy on the exempt portion being illegal, the sale thereof was likewise unlawful and
    unenforceable. The Petitioner could not plead ignorance of the inclusion of the exempted portion in the
    levy and sale, he being the landlord on whose land the palay was harvested.

    You might also like