NAVALES vs RIAS Case Digest
Navales vs. Rias et. al.
FACTS:
Vicente Navales constructed a house in the land owned by Eulogia Rias. By virtue of the decision of the justice in the action instituted by Rias against Navales, the deputy sheriff who carried the judgment into execution was obliged to destroy the house and remove it from the land, according to the usual procedure in the action for ejectment. Navales filed a complaint with the CFI of Cebu claiming for damages against the defendants. The court rendered judgment declaring that the decision entered by the justice of peace and the execution of the order by the sheriff were illegal, that the defendants were thereby liable for damages.
FACTS:
Vicente Navales constructed a house in the land owned by Eulogia Rias. By virtue of the decision of the justice in the action instituted by Rias against Navales, the deputy sheriff who carried the judgment into execution was obliged to destroy the house and remove it from the land, according to the usual procedure in the action for ejectment. Navales filed a complaint with the CFI of Cebu claiming for damages against the defendants. The court rendered judgment declaring that the decision entered by the justice of peace and the execution of the order by the sheriff were illegal, that the defendants were thereby liable for damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants were liable for damages.
HELD: No. The judgment rendered by the justice of peace for the ejectment of the house of Navales, not having been appealed from, had become final. There was no reason why it should not be enforced when it had already become final and acquired by the nature of res judicata.
When the illegality of the judgment rendered by the justice of peace and the acts performed by the sheriff in compliance therewith has not been proven, it is presumed that the official duty has been regularly performed.
No proof has been submitted that a contract had been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants, or that the latter had committed illegal acts or omissions or incurred in any kind of fault or negligence, from any of which an obligation might have arisen on the part of the defendants to indemnify the plaintiff. For this reason, the claim for indemnity, on account of acts performed by the sheriff while enforcing a judgment, cannot under any consideration be sustained.
HELD: No. The judgment rendered by the justice of peace for the ejectment of the house of Navales, not having been appealed from, had become final. There was no reason why it should not be enforced when it had already become final and acquired by the nature of res judicata.
When the illegality of the judgment rendered by the justice of peace and the acts performed by the sheriff in compliance therewith has not been proven, it is presumed that the official duty has been regularly performed.
No proof has been submitted that a contract had been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants, or that the latter had committed illegal acts or omissions or incurred in any kind of fault or negligence, from any of which an obligation might have arisen on the part of the defendants to indemnify the plaintiff. For this reason, the claim for indemnity, on account of acts performed by the sheriff while enforcing a judgment, cannot under any consideration be sustained.
Comments
Post a Comment