https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/jan2020/gr_201812_2020.html
“x x x.
A frivolous action is a groundless lawsuit with little prospect of success. (BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY. Sixth Edition, p. 668). It is often brought merely to harass, annoy, and cast groundless suspicions on the integrity and reputation of the defendant. (Prieto v. Corpuz, 539 Phil. 65, 72 [2006]).
When petitioner filed the third-party complaint, she was merely exercising her right to litigate, claiming ownership over the subject property, submitting as evidence the Deed of Sale dated July 26, 1980 and TCT No. T-34705 issued in her name. Being the registered owner of the subject property, she has a remedy under the law to assail the writ of attachment and notice of levy. A third-party claimant or any third person may vindicate his claim to his property wrongfully levied by filing a proper action, which is distinct and separate from that in which the judgment is being enforced. Such action would have for its object the recovery of the possession of the property seized by the Sheriff, as well as damages resulting from the allegedly wrongful seizure and detention thereof despite the third-party claim. (Capa v. Court of Appeals, 533 Phil. 691, 702 [2006]).
When the third-party complaint was denied by the RTC, petitioner's remedy was to file an independent reivindicatory action against the judgment creditor - herein respondents. (Florenz D. Regalado, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDUM, Vol. 1, 1999 Ed., pp. 443-446). In fact, this was the directive of the RTC when it denied petitioner's third-party complaint. Hence, when petitioner filed the complaint for annulment and cancellation of writ of attachment and notice of levy, injunction, damages and attorney's fees, she did not act in bad faith nor was the complaint frivolous.
X x x,”
“x x x.
A frivolous action is a groundless lawsuit with little prospect of success. (BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY. Sixth Edition, p. 668). It is often brought merely to harass, annoy, and cast groundless suspicions on the integrity and reputation of the defendant. (Prieto v. Corpuz, 539 Phil. 65, 72 [2006]).
When petitioner filed the third-party complaint, she was merely exercising her right to litigate, claiming ownership over the subject property, submitting as evidence the Deed of Sale dated July 26, 1980 and TCT No. T-34705 issued in her name. Being the registered owner of the subject property, she has a remedy under the law to assail the writ of attachment and notice of levy. A third-party claimant or any third person may vindicate his claim to his property wrongfully levied by filing a proper action, which is distinct and separate from that in which the judgment is being enforced. Such action would have for its object the recovery of the possession of the property seized by the Sheriff, as well as damages resulting from the allegedly wrongful seizure and detention thereof despite the third-party claim. (Capa v. Court of Appeals, 533 Phil. 691, 702 [2006]).
When the third-party complaint was denied by the RTC, petitioner's remedy was to file an independent reivindicatory action against the judgment creditor - herein respondents. (Florenz D. Regalado, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDUM, Vol. 1, 1999 Ed., pp. 443-446). In fact, this was the directive of the RTC when it denied petitioner's third-party complaint. Hence, when petitioner filed the complaint for annulment and cancellation of writ of attachment and notice of levy, injunction, damages and attorney's fees, she did not act in bad faith nor was the complaint frivolous.
X x x,”
