Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 84 views

    Nacar V Nistal

    Uploaded by

    Elah Viktoria
    This case involves a petition filed by Nicanor Nacar to annul an order from Judge Nistal directing the attachment of seven carabaos to satisfy a debt owed by Nacar's stepfather. Ildefonso Japitana had filed a complaint alleging Nacar intended to dispose of the property and avoid paying the debt. However, the court found that Nacar had no legal obligation to pay his stepfather's debts as there was no evidence Nacar incurred the debt himself or was otherwise legally responsible for it. Therefore, the attachment order against Nacar's property was annulled.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nacar V Nistal

    Uploaded by

    Elah Viktoria
    84 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition filed by Nicanor Nacar to annul an order from Judge Nistal directing the attachment of seven carabaos to satisfy a debt owed by Nacar's stepfather. Ildefonso Japitana had filed a complaint alleging Nacar intended to dispose of the property and avoid paying the debt. However, the court found that Nacar had no legal obligation to pay his stepfather's debts as there was no evidence Nacar incurred the debt himself or was otherwise legally responsible for it. Therefore, the attachment order against Nacar's property was annulled.

    Original Description:

    yrti9o

    Original Title

    Nacar v Nistal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition filed by Nicanor Nacar to annul an order from Judge Nistal directing the attachment of seven carabaos to satisfy a debt owed by Nacar's stepfather. Ildefonso Japitana had filed a complaint alleging Nacar intended to dispose of the property and avoid paying the debt. However, the court found that Nacar had no legal obligation to pay his stepfather's debts as there was no evidence Nacar incurred the debt himself or was otherwise legally responsible for it. Therefore, the attachment order against Nacar's property was annulled.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    84 views2 pages

    Nacar V Nistal

    Uploaded by

    Elah Viktoria
    This case involves a petition filed by Nicanor Nacar to annul an order from Judge Nistal directing the attachment of seven carabaos to satisfy a debt owed by Nacar's stepfather. Ildefonso Japitana had filed a complaint alleging Nacar intended to dispose of the property and avoid paying the debt. However, the court found that Nacar had no legal obligation to pay his stepfather's debts as there was no evidence Nacar incurred the debt himself or was otherwise legally responsible for it. Therefore, the attachment order against Nacar's property was annulled.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    NACAR VS.

    NISTAL
    G.R. No. L-33006 - December 8, 1982

    Ponente: J. Gutierrez

    FACTS:

    Nicanor Nacar filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and


    mandamus with preliminary injunction to annul an order of the respondent
    judge of the municipal court of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur directing the
    attachment of seven carabaos, to effect the return of four carabaos seized
    under the questioned order.

    Respondent Ildefonso Japitana filed the complaint including an


    allegation "that defendant are about to remove and dispose the above-named
    property (seven carabaos) with intent to defraud plaintiff herein", and
    considering that Mr. Japitana had given security according to the Rules of
    Court, Judge Nistal issued the order commanding the provincial sheriff to
    attach the seven heads of cattle in the possession of petitioner Nicanor
    Nacar. Actually only four carabaos were attached because three carabaos
    had earlier been slaughtered during the rites preceding the burial of the late
    Isabelo Nacar.

    Nicanor Nacar filed a motion to dismiss, to dissolve writ of


    preliminary attachment, and to order the return of the carabaos. Private
    respondent Japitana filed an opposition to this motion while intervenor
    Antonio Doloricon filed a complaint in intervention asserting that he was the
    owner of the attached carabaos and that the certificates of ownership of large
    cattle were in his name.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not respondent is liable.

    RULING:

    No, he is not liable. A person has no obligation to pay for the debts of
    his stepfather.

    Indeed, although respondent Japitana may have a legal right to


    recover an indebtedness due him, petitioner Nicanor Nacar has no
    correlative legal duty to pay the debt for the simple reason that there is
    nothing in the complaint to show that he incurred the debt or had anything to
    do with the creation of the liability. As far as the debt is concerned, there is
    no allegation or showing that the petitioner had acted in violation of Mr.
    Japitana's rights with consequential injury or damage to the latter as would
    create a cause of action against the former.

    You might also like