IDELFONSO v CASTRO

In the criminal case of for reckless imprudence, Christopher Salvador

was adjudged guilty and ordered to pay Idelfonso Jacinto actual
damages and in case of insolvency, Artemio the owner of the
passenger jeep involved in the case would be subsidiarily liable.

The writ of execution was not satisfied since according to Sheriff

Castros report, Christopher had neither personal nor real property to
be levied upon. A Subsidiary Writ of Execution against Artemio
Salvador was later issued.

Idelfonso alleges that in the implementation of the writ of execution,

Sheriff Castro seized a motor tricycle from Christopher but
subsequently released it, and the same happened to the passenger
jeep.

Sheriff Castro justified the release of the properties by alleging that

both have already been sold to 3rd persons as evidenced by the deed of
sale and a certification from the municipal assessor that the
Christopher has no registered property therein.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), noting that Sheriff Castro
released the vehicles despite the absence of affidavits supporting
third-party claims and the prior approval of the court, found that
respondent failed to adhere to the rules regarding third- party claims.

ISSUE: WON Sheriff Castro followed the procedure under Sec 16 of the
Rules of Court?

RULING: NO. When a person other than the judgment obligor or his
agent claims title or right to the possession over a property levied on in
execution, Section 16 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court directs.

That the officer is not bound to keep the property levied only when
such person
1. makes an affidavit of his title or right to the possession of the
property and the grounds of such right or title,
2. serves the same upon the officer making the levy; and
3. copy thereof is served upon the judgment creditor.

In the case at bar, the 3rd persons to whom the properties were sold to
did not file any affidavit of claim nor was the same served upon Sherif
Castro and Idelfonso, thus the release made by Castro based only on
the deed of sale and a certification from the municipal assessor is not
justified under the Rules.