[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
342 views2 pages

Municipality of Makati Vs CA Digest

- The Municipality of Makati expropriated land owned by Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium and deposited funds in a bank account to pay for the expropriated land. - Admiral Finance filed a motion to garnish the unpaid balance in the account. Makati claimed it had two accounts, one for the expropriation and one for other purposes. - The court held that public funds like those in Makati's second account are not subject to levy unless authorized by statute. Funds intended for governmental activities are exempt from execution. - The court ordered Makati to pay the unpaid balance to Philippine Savings Bank and Admiral Finance from the first account within 30 days.

Uploaded by

Anonymous 5k7iGy
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
342 views2 pages

Municipality of Makati Vs CA Digest

- The Municipality of Makati expropriated land owned by Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium and deposited funds in a bank account to pay for the expropriated land. - Admiral Finance filed a motion to garnish the unpaid balance in the account. Makati claimed it had two accounts, one for the expropriation and one for other purposes. - The court held that public funds like those in Makati's second account are not subject to levy unless authorized by statute. Funds intended for governmental activities are exempt from execution. - The court ordered Makati to pay the unpaid balance to Philippine Savings Bank and Admiral Finance from the first account within 30 days.

Uploaded by

Anonymous 5k7iGy
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Municipality of Makati vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 89898-99 October 1, 1990; Cortes, J.

Facts: Petitioner Municipality of Makati expropriated a portion of land owned by private respondents, Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium, Inc. in !"#, In lieu of an expropriation proceedin$ filed in court, petitioner Municipality of Makati opened a bank account wit% t%e P&' 'uendia 'ranc% under petitioner(s name containin$ t%e sum of P) *,+ ,.,,, pursuant to t%e provisions of Pres. -ecree &o. ).. /0C Makati determined t%e cost of t%e said land to be P+,.! ,###.,, minus t%e advanced payment of P11", #,.,,. It issued t%e correspondin$ writ of execution accompanied wit% a writ of $arnis%ment of funds of t%e petitioner w%ic% was deposited in P&'. After t%is decision became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued and a &otice of 2arnis%ment was served by respondent s%eriff upon t%e mana$er of t%e P&' 'uendia 'ranc%. 3owever, respondent s%eriff was informed t%at a 4%old code4 was placed on t%e account of petitioner. Private respondent t%en filed a motion prayin$ for t%e court to order t%e bank to deliver to t%e s%eriff t%e unpaid balance, w%ile petitioner also filed a motion to lift t%e $arnis%ment. 5%ile t%ese motions are pendin$, %owever, a 6Manifestation7 was filed, informin$ t%e court t%at private respondent was no lon$er t%e owner of t%e sub8ect property and t%at owners%ip to t%is %as been transferred to P%ilippine 9avin$s 'ank, Inc. A compromise agreement was made between private respondent and P%ilippine 9avin$s 'ank, Inc., w%ic% was t%en approved by t%e court. 0%e court furt%er ordered P&' 'uendia 'ranc% to immediately release to P9' t%e sum of P),!+1,+,#.)+ w%ic% corresponds to t%e balance of t%e appraised value of t%e sub8ect property, from t%e $arnis%ed account of petitioner but t%e bank failed to comply as it was still waitin$ for proper aut%ori:ation from t%e P&' %ead office enablin$ it to make a disbursement for t%e amount so ordered. As t%e case was in t%e 9upreme Court, petitioner raised for t%e first time t%at it %ad two accounts wit% P&' 'uendia 'ranc%; one was made exclusively for t%e expropriation of t%e sub8ect property, and t%e ot%er is for statutory obli$ations and ot%er purposes of t%e municipal $overnment Issue: 5<& t%e balance of t%e appraised value of t%e sub8ect property may be levied upon t%e second account of petitioner municipality= Held: It is well>settled is t%e rule t%at public funds are not sub8ect to levy and execution, unless ot%erwise provided for by statute. More particularly, t%e properties of a municipality, w%et%er real or personal, w%ic% are necessary for public use cannot be attac%ed and sold at execution sale to satisfy a money 8ud$ment a$ainst t%e municipality. Municipal revenues are derived from taxes, licenses and market fees, and w%ic% are intended primarily and exclusively for t%e purpose of financin$ t%e $overnmental activities and functions of t%e municipality, are exempt from execution. Absent a s%owin$ t%at t%e municipal council of Makati %as passed an ordinance appropriatin$ from its public funds an amount correspondin$ to t%e balance due under t%e /0C decision dated ?une ), !"*, less t%e sum of P!!,*)1.!) deposited in Account &o. 9@A .#+>+1* +)>1, no levy under execution may be validly effected on t%e public funds of petitioner deposited in Account &o. 9@A .#1>+1,"+,>*.

0%e court %ereby orders petitioner Municipality of Makati to immediately pay P%ilippine 9avin$s 'ank, Inc. and private respondent t%e amount of P),!+1,+,#.)+. Petitioner is %ereby reAuired to submit to t%is Court a report of its compliance wit% t%e fore$oin$ order wit%in a non>extendible period of 9IB0C D#,E -AC9 from t%e date of receipt of t%is resolution.

You might also like