REVIEW

Date August 19, 2020

To Atty. Melchor Carlos R. Rabanes
From Vince Dave A. Bernardino
Module 1 Unit 1

FIRST CASE: Golden Sun Finance Corp. vs Ricardo R. Albano (A.M. No. P-11-2888, July 27, 2011)

1. It is laid down in jurisprudence that before a Sheriff or officer levies a real property, he
must first exhaust all the personal properties that is equivalent to the debt of the person.
Thus, when an officer levies a personal property on the grounds of payment of a debt, it is
nothing short of legal. The error, in this case, lies in the complainant stating that the acts of
the Sheriff in levying the car is a negligent act, raising the assumption that the car is a real
property.

2. The Court has ruled that the acts of the Sheriff is in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Considering the fact that the car is a personal property, it is but proper to say that levying
such did not violate any provisions of the law.

SECOND CASE: Latorre vs Latorre (GR. No. 183926, March 29, 2010)

1. In this case of Latorre v. Latorre, it is apparent and indubitable that the subject property is
indeed a real property; thus, it means that it cannot be moved unless provided otherwise
under the provisions of the law. Being a real property, actions regarding such “shall be filed
in the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the area where the property is situated.”
Thus, in this case, the error, as committed by the RTC, lies not in the classification of the
property but the proper jurisdiction in which actions should be filed in regards to the subject
property.

2. Considering the fact that there was no apparent error in the classification of the property, the
Court has moved its attention to the error committed by the RTC, which is denying the
motion of the respondent to dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue. The Court
has held that the RTC failed to adjudicate this case on its merits, to which it would
necessarily include the determining of the venue in which the action should be filed.