G.R. No. L-9058, December 29, 1914
JULIO ALAGAR, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO PIO DE RODA, MARIANO PIO DE RODA, and MARIANO MANALO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The defendants-appellants, Francisco Pio de Roda and Mariano Pio de Roda, obtained a judgment against Abdon Ambat and Isabel Bebe in a prior case (No. 396). An execution was issued on April 4, 1911, to enforce the judgment. On June 7, 1911, the sheriff attached a parcel of land allegedly belonging to the judgment debtors. The plaintiff-appellee, Julio Alagar, claimed ownership of the attached land, gave written notice to the sheriff, and posted a bond to release the attachment. Despite this, the sheriff proceeded to sell the land at public auction to the appellants on December 28, 1911. Alagar filed an action to annul the sale and recover possession, alleging the land was his property, inherited from his parents, and he had been in possession for over thirty years. The defendants contended the land belonged to Ambat and Bebe at the time of attachment. The trial court ruled in favor of Alagar, declaring the sale null and void, ordering the return of the land, and awarding damages for its use and occupation. The defendants appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the parcel of land attached and sold belonged to the plaintiff-appellee Julio Alagar or to the judgment debtors Abdon Ambat and Isabel Bebe.
2. Whether the attachment and subsequent sheriff’s sale were valid.
3. Whether the defendants-appellants are liable for damages for the use and occupation of the land.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision.

1. On Ownership: The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the preponderance of evidence established Julio Alagar as the true owner of the land. He had inherited it from his parents and had been in peaceful possession as owner for over thirty years prior to the attachment. The land did not belong to the judgment debtors, Ambat and Bebe.

2. On Validity of Attachment and Sale: The Court found the sheriff’s attachment and sale void for two independent reasons:
– First, the attachment was made beyond the writ’s lifetime. Under Section 445 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions (now Rule 39, Rules of Court), an execution must be returned within 60 days from its issuance. The writ was issued on April 4, 1911, but the attachment was made only on June 7, 1911, which was beyond the 60-day period. The sheriff had no authority to attach property after the writ’s return date; an alias writ should have been secured.
– Second, and more fundamentally, the sheriff had no authority to sell the land of Alagar to satisfy the debt of another. Since the land belonged to Alagar and not to the judgment debtors, the sale was illegal and void.

3. On Damages: The Court held the appellants were not possessors in good faith. They had insisted on the sale despite Alagar’s written claim of ownership and the bond he posted. Therefore, they were liable for damages amounting to P160 for the use and occupation of the land.

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellants’ assignments of error and affirmed the judgment in toto, with costs against the appellants.