7/25/2019 Asian Footwear

1/1

ASIAN FOOTWEAR & RUBBER CORPORATION vs. SORIANO

ASIAN which is engaged in the production of footwears, bought from Jacinto Rubber andPlastics Co., Inc. (JACIN !" eight (#" parcels of land together with the permanentimpro$ements thereon. he purchase price was P%&'.'' per s uare meter plus assumption b)

ASIAN of JACIN !*s obligation to the Philippine +an ing Corporation in the amount ofP-,-#%, /-.00. Subse uentl), ASIAN had obtained transfer certificates of title to the lands whichit had bought.

Asian had been operating business operations peacefull) until 1a) 02, 0 #&, when respondent3eput) Sheriff Soriano, together with some policemen and other persons went to the premisesof petitioner Asian to enforce an Alias 4rit of 56ecution commanding the Acting Sheriff of theN7RC, 8to proceed to the premises of respondent Jacinto Rubber and Plastics Compan), Inc.,and collect the amount of P 92&, #. representing complainants* gratuit) pa). If )ou fail tocollect the said amount in cash, )ou ma) cause the full satisfaction of this writ out of themo$able goods and chattel, or in the absence thereof, the immo$able properties of therespondent not e6empt from e6ecution.8

ASIAN resisted the e6ecution on the ground that the properties sought to be le$ied were its ownand not JACIN !*S. he sheriff reported ASIAN*s posture to :i$ar and in a conference with

ASIAN he $erball) intimated that ASIAN was a purchaser in bad faith so that the writ ofe6ecution could be enforced against it. ;ence, the instant petition.

ISSUE < whether sale of propert) being le$ied on e6ecution was done in bad faith

RULING < No, the sale of propert) was not done in bad faith, hence, the writ of e6ecution shouldnot be enforced against it.

he record shows that when ASIAN bought the JACIN ! properties, the latter had alread)stopped its business operations. In fact, it had applied with the 1inistr) of 7abor for clearancefor a total shotdown. 1oreo$er, at the time of the sale the onl) lien annotated on the certificatesof title was the mortgage in fa$or of the Philippine +an ing Corporation e6ecuted b) JACIN !.=inall), there is nothing to show that ASIAN is JACIN ! b) another name. In the light of theforegoing, if there is nonetheless suspicion that the sale of the JACIN ! properties to ASIANwas not in good faith, i.e. was made in fraud of creditors, a go$ernment functionar) li e therespondent labor arbiter is incompetent to ma e a determination. he tas is >udicial and theproceedings must be ad$ersar).