KATIHAN v.

JUDGE MACEREN removal of the improvements on the property subject

of execution can be made.
Facts:
ISSUE # 2: WON the Sherrif properly furnished the
The complaint alleged that due to the writ of court with the required periodic reports.
demolition issued by J. Maceren, KATIHAN was ejected
from the property without due process of law. They Ruling: No.
declare that they should not be affected by the decision
rendered by J. Maceren in the ejectment and damages The Rules of Court mandates the officer that if the
judgment cannot be satisfied within 30 days after his
case filed by Limsui against the unlawful settlers of his
property because there group were not impleaded as receipt of the writ of execution, he shall report to the
court and state the reason therefor.
respondents thereto.
In this case, the records reveal that on Nov. 30, 2005,
As for Sheriff Ortega, they averred that his issuance of a
notice of demolition was not proper as it was made the MeTC issued the writ of execution and on the same
date, Sheriff Ortega issued the notice to vacate.
without order or authority from the MeTC. The Court
exonerated Judge Maceren from the administrative
Therefore, it was incumbent upon him to submit a
liability on the ground that there was no concrete
report to the MeTC on Dec. 30, 2005, and every 30 days
evidence that he allowed or participated in the Sherrif’s
thereafter until the judgment is satisfied in full or until
act but it ruled that Sheriff Ortega is administratively
its effectivity expires.
liable. In a motion for reconsideration filed by Sheriff
Ortega, he insisted that he committed no wrong in
issuing the notice of demolition without the order from
the MeTC as it was the party themselves who agreed to
the demolition under the compromise agreement.

ISSUE:

WON the order of demolition issued by the Sheriff was

proper.

Ruling:

NO. The order of demolition was not proper as an

outright removal by the sheriff of the structures erected
in the property subject of execution is not allowed
under Sec. 10 (c) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
According to this provision, when the property subject
of the execution contains improvements constructed or
planted by the judgment obligor, or his agent, the
officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said
improvement except upon special order of the court,
issued upon motion of the judgment oblige after due
hearing and after the former has failed to remove the
same within a reasonable time fixed by the court.
Therefore, aside from the writ of execution
implementing the court’s decision, another writ or
order must also be acquired from the court before the