SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-45404 May 11, 1938

SIXTO CASTILLO GONZALEZ, assisted by his guardian ad litem Sixto Castillo, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MODESTO CASTILLO, ET AL., Defendant-Appellant.

Salvador V. Lata for plaintiff and appellant.
Ramon Diokno and P. Joya Admana for defendants and appellants.

CONCEPCION, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

A motion has been filed by the appellant for the reconsideration of the resolution of the 31th of January of the current year denying the petition filed by her for the purpose of securing from this court an ordering lifting the attachment levied on the properties of the plaintiff Sixto Castillo.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As the said motion alleged a new ground not set forth in the previous petition which was denied, this court, by resolution of March 25th, last, treated said motion for reconsideration as a new petition and ordered that the defendants be served with a copy thereof.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The defendants having answered the said new petition, and it appearing that, with the death of the original plaintiff Sixto Castillo, the danger that he might fraudulently alienable the properties in litigation to the prejudice of the defendants, has disappeared, the reason for maintaining the attachment has consequently ceased to exist..chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Furthermore, inasmuch as the judicial administratrix of the properties of the deceased plaintiff in whose name of the present litigation is continued, could not likewise alienate the properties here involved without judicial sanction which would not be granted without previous notice to the defendants, children of the deceased, and without prior determination by the court of the real necessity or use of the sale of any of said properties, it is obvious that the fundamental ground on which the preliminary attachment of the properties of said plaintiff was granted has altogether disappeared.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Wherefore, it is ordered that the attachment of the properties of the plaintiff in this case be lifted. So ordered.

Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, JJ., concur.