[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Vicente Navales vs. Eulogia Rias

1) A judgment was rendered ordering a man (Y) to remove his house from another man's (X) land. The deputy sheriff (Z) then removed Y's house as required by the court order. 2) Y sought indemnity from X and Z for the destruction of his house. However, no evidence was presented that X or Z committed any illegal acts or were negligent in removing the house. 3) For a claim of indemnity to succeed, there must be proof of a contract requiring it or evidence of wrongdoing. Since neither existed, Y's claim could not be sustained.

Uploaded by

G S
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Vicente Navales vs. Eulogia Rias

1) A judgment was rendered ordering a man (Y) to remove his house from another man's (X) land. The deputy sheriff (Z) then removed Y's house as required by the court order. 2) Y sought indemnity from X and Z for the destruction of his house. However, no evidence was presented that X or Z committed any illegal acts or were negligent in removing the house. 3) For a claim of indemnity to succeed, there must be proof of a contract requiring it or evidence of wrongdoing. Since neither existed, Y's claim could not be sustained.

Uploaded by

G S
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE (de Leon):

Liability of sheriff lawfully enforcing a judgment in an ejectment suit.

Facts: A judgment was rendered by a justice of the peace court (municipal court) in favor of X who
brought an ejectment suit against Y, the owner of the house built on the land of X. Z, the deputy sheriff
who executed the judgment, was obliged to remove the house of Y from the land according to the usual
procedure in the action for ejectment.

Issue: Is Y entitled to indemnity arising from the destruction of his house?

Held: No proof has been submitted that a contract had been entered into between plaintiff (Y) and the
defendants (X and Z) 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 X and Z to
indemnify Y. 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. (Navales vs. Rias, 8 Phil. 508
[1907].)

Navales vs. Rias, 8 Phil. 508 [1907]

Facts: A judgment was rendered to abolish the house of Navales in Naga, Island of Cebu. Rias, being
the deputy sheriff, executed the same. Navales, filed a complaint in the CFI of Cebu for illegal
destruction and indemnification. Petition was granted. Upon appeal, the motion was denied. Hence, this
petition.

Issue: Whether Rias, who in the performance of his duty, has the obligation to indemnify Navales for
the damages incurred in the destruction of his house

Ruling: No. When there exists no proof that a contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the
defendants, or that the latter performed any illegal act or omission, or other acts or omissions in which
any kind of fault or negligence occurred from any of which an obligation to indemnify the plaintiff could
have arisen, a claim for damages can not be sustained under any consideration, there being no right of
action.
Here, the act of the acts performed by the sheriff is only in compliance with its official duty
arising from the execution of the aforesaid judgment, which have not been disputed nor alleged to be
null or illegal. Also, it is not possible to impute liability on the part of the plaintiff who obtained a final
decision and much less to compel him to indemnify the person who was defeated in the action and who
was sentenced to be ejected from the land he improperly occupied.

Fallo: The illegality of the judgment of the justice of the peace, that of the writ of execution
thereunder, or of the acts performed by the sheriff for the enforcement of the judgment, has not been
shown. Therefore, for the reasons hereinbefore set forth, the judgment appealed from is hereby
reversed, and the complaint for damages filed by Vicente Navales against Eulogia Rias and Maximo
Requiroso is dismissed without special ruling as to costs. So ordered.

You might also like