Practice question
A creditor obtains an attachment writ but never causes the prescribed levy or garnishment of the nonresident debtor’s identified local account. No other res-control proceeding occurs. He claims the unimplemented writ alone creates control over that account. Which distinction matters?
- Authority to attach is not the same as completed lawful attachment of the specific res
- An unimplemented writ automatically garnishes every account
- The creditor’s knowledge of the account creates custody
- The bank’s existence alone binds all assets
- The debtor’s foreign residence transfers ownership
Legal references
- Rules of Court, Rule57 Sections5–7 and Rule39: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html
- De Joya v Marquez GR162416 January31,2006 MAIN res-control modes: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.