FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 1905. April 9, 1904. ]
FLAVIANO FELIZARDO ET AL., Petitioners, v. the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF IMUS, Respondent.
Pineda and Escueta, for Petitioners.
SYLLABUS
1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; ATTACHMENT; CLAIM. — One whose property has been attached upon process in case to which he is not a party may file a claim with the officer executing the attachment in accordance with the provisions of section 451 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and obtain discharge of the attachment.
2. ID.; PROHIBITION; ATTACHMENT. — The writ of prohibition will not lie to discharge an attachment levied upon property which can be recovered by filing a claim with the officer. The judge trying the case in which the attachment of the property was ordered is a competent officer, and even though the attachment be erroneous, it does not follow that the judge has exceeded his jurisdiction.
3. ID.; ATTACHMENT; CLAIM. — The erroneous levy of an attachment authorizes the person damaged thereby to make the claim provided for by law, without prejudice to exercising his right to the property attached in a corresponding action.
2. ID.; PROHIBITION; ATTACHMENT. — The writ of prohibition will not lie to discharge an attachment levied upon property which can be recovered by filing a claim with the officer. The judge trying the case in which the attachment of the property was ordered is a competent officer, and even though the attachment be erroneous, it does not follow that the judge has exceeded his jurisdiction.
3. ID.; ATTACHMENT; CLAIM. — The erroneous levy of an attachment authorizes the person damaged thereby to make the claim provided for by law, without prejudice to exercising his right to the property attached in a corresponding action.
D E C I S I O N
TORRES, J.:
Attorneys Pineda and Escueta, on behalf of Flaviano Felizardo and Francisco Felizardo, upon the facts stated in their complaint, dated April 4, 1904, and upon the ground that there was no other speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, pray for an order dissolving the attachment levied upon the property of the petitioners, and that a writ issue to the justice of the peace of Imus, requiring him to absolutely refrain from all further proceedings until a final decision is rendered upon the complaint.
By intervening in the suit in which the attachment was levied, the parties may avail themselves of all the legal remedies provided for the defense of their lawful rights, but can not avail themselves of the writ of prohibition for the purpose of obtaining a discharge of attachment complained of. The case is one which pertains exclusively to the jurisdiction of the judge who is trying it, and there is no authority of law for interference with the proceedings. The writ is denied, with the costs against the petitioners.
Arellano, C.J., Cooper, Mapa, McDonough and Johnson, JJ., concur.
By intervening in the suit in which the attachment was levied, the parties may avail themselves of all the legal remedies provided for the defense of their lawful rights, but can not avail themselves of the writ of prohibition for the purpose of obtaining a discharge of attachment complained of. The case is one which pertains exclusively to the jurisdiction of the judge who is trying it, and there is no authority of law for interference with the proceedings. The writ is denied, with the costs against the petitioners.
Arellano, C.J., Cooper, Mapa, McDonough and Johnson, JJ., concur.
