G.R. NO. 132537 - MARY JOSEPHINE GOMEZ AND EUGENIA SOCORRO C. GOMEZ-SALCEDO, VS. ROEL, NOEL, AND JANNETTE BEVERLY STA. INES AND HINAHON STA. INES. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, for lack of basis, the motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED. The respondent is hereby directed to file her answer within 15 days from receipt of this Order. [5] On 01 December 1993, herein petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was then granted by the Nueva Vizcaya RTC in an Order dated 28 January 1994. The trial court reasoned thus: After restudying the jurisprudence involved in the motion for reconsideration impinging [sic] on the jurisdiction of this court in relation to the execution of a judgment rendered by another Regional Trial Court (in Pasig, Metro Manila), indeed, the only conclusion that can be honestly reached is that this court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the herein action. As correctly posited by the defendant's counsel, it is the Pasig Regional Trial Court that should still exercise jurisdiction over execution of its judgments, "a power that carries with it the right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution." (see GSIS vs. Guines, 219 SCRA 724; Darwin vs. Takonaza, 197 SCRA 442). In fine, plaintiffs should have challenged the action of the Sheriffs in the civil case wherein the judgment being executed was promulgated, and not in an independent action filed with a different or even the same court. WHEREFORE, for this court's lack of jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED, with costs de officio. [6] Herein respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said Order of dismissal which was denied by the lower court in an Order dated 15 March 1994. Aggrieved, respondents appealed said Order to the Court of Appeals raising the following errors: 1) the lower court erred in holding that it lacks jurisdiction for the question presented in this case should have been brought in the Pasig Court as a part of the proceedings therein and not as a separate case; and 2) the lower court erred in holding that plaintiffs (herein respondents) cannot be considered third-party claimants. In their Appellee's Brief, herein petitioners assailed the jurisdiction of the appellate court to entertain the said appeal arguing that the issues raised were purely questions of law which the Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. On 29 March 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision reversing the Order of dismissal. According to the appellate court: Section 17, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: " Proceedings where property claimed by third person -If property levied on be claimed by any other person than the judgment debtor or his agent, and such person make an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof , stating the grounds of such right or title , and served the same upon the officer making the levy, and a copy thereof upon the judgment creditor, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment creditor or his agent, on demand of the officer, indemnify the officer aga