Jalbuena v Lizarraga| GR No. 10599|Trent, J. | | by Jasper d.

The phrase "stood by" does not an actual

FACTS:
● On May 22, 1903, Lizarraga caused the sheriff of
Iloilo to levy upon an old sugar mill owned by
Ildefonso Doronila. At the time of the levy, Doronila
stated to the sheriff that the mill belonged to him.
● The sale took place about on July 1913. The
purchaser at the public sale subsequently sold the
mill to Lopez.
● Vicenta Jalbuena instituted a complaint to recover
the mill or its value, claiming that the mill was her
exclusive property and Ildefonso had no interest
therein.
● Vicenta knew that the old sugar mill had been
levied upon at the time the levy was made. She also
knew that it would be sold as property of her
husband. Despite these, she stood by and
permitted the sale to go forward without making
the slightest protest or claim until the property had
passed into the hands of Lopez. Based on this, the
TC held that Vicenta was estopped from asserting
her claim of ownership against the defendants,
hence this appeal
ISSUES/RATIO:
1. W/N Vicenta is estopped from asserting her claim
of ownership- YES.
presence, but implies knowledge under
such circumstances as to render in the
duty of the prossessor to communicate it.
e. Vicenta had full knowledge of the fact that
the property was going to be sold to pay
the debts of her husband. She did not
communicate her claim to the purchaser,
and it is now too late to assert such claim.
RULING: Judgement Affirmed
DOCTRINE
Where the true owner of property, for however short a time,
holds out another,or, with knowledge of his own right,
allows another to appear, as the owner of or as having full
power of disposition over the property, the same being in
the latter’s actual possession, and innocent thirdparties are
thus led into dealing with some [such] apparent owner, they
(innocent 3rd parties) will be protected.(ESTOPPED from
enforcing claim)
Notes
Actual presence of the owner at the sale is not necessary in
order that he may be estopped from afterwards setting up
his title to the property. It is only necessary that the owner
be chargeable with knowledge of the impending sale under
circumstances that render it his duty to assert his title

a. SC held that ff. cited cases did not support

Vicenta's contention (see comparison):
i. Waite v. Peterson: interested
party made a demand upon the
sheriff for the return of the
property levied upon
ii. Lopez v. Alvarez: had nothing to
do with question of preferred
creditor
iii. Uy Piaoco v. Osmeña: there was
also a claim made upon the
sheriff for the return of the
property soon after it was
attached
iv. Ariston v. Cea: claim made upon
the sheriff for the release of the
property before it was sold under
execution
v. Bonzon v. Standard Oil Co. and
Osorio: ratio had nothing to do
with estoppel
b. An execution is an order to the sheriff to
attach and sell the property of the
judgment debtor. If he sells the property of
another person, he exceeds his authority
and the true owner may issue in trespass
for damages or for the recovery of the
property, provide he has not lost his right
to do so by his own conduct.
c. "When a person having title to or an
interest in property knowingly stands by
and suffers it to be sold under a judgment
or decree, without asserting his title or
right or making it known to the bidders, he
cannot afterward set up his claim."