Article 577.- The third person seized who does not make his declaration or does not present the controls ordered in the preceding articles is declared debtor pure and simple of the causes of seizure. Article 578.- If the seizure or opposition of movable property is blocked, the third party is required to attach to his declaration a detailed explanation of the said effects. Articles 557 to 582 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Dominican Code of Civil Procedure contain the provisions for blocking this measure, which in its first phase is of a conservation nature, so that no enforceable title is required, since they can be blocked by an authentic title or under a private signature, but if they do not have one, permission to continue must be requested from the judge of first instance in accordance with article 558 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states: “In the absence of a title, the judge of the domicile of the debtor as well as of the domicile of the third attachment may, of its own motion, allow the seizure of the detention or the opposition”. On the other hand, in its second phase, it is enforceable, through the decision that confirms the blocked embargo and makes this measure enforceable. This is the procedure in which a creditor has sums of money or movable property owed to his debtor by a third party, and after complying with the procedures established by law, he is obliged to pay the value of the seized property. In this sense, three actors are involved in this seizure, the creditor, who is the administrator of the seizure, the debtor of the creditor, who is in turn the creditor of the third party seized, and the third party seized, who is in turn the debtor of the seizure, in whose hands the seizure takes place and whose quality depends on the existence of his own power over the property and the absence of subordination to the seizure. SEIZURE OF RESTRAINT Competent court.- Doubtful solvency.- If the claim is doubtful or seriously contested, the court may, at the request of the embargo, declare the seizure null and void. This question must be resolved by the civil court, which has sole jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the seizure, even if the substance is a commercial claim falling within the jurisdiction of the commercial court; and that before he explains his incompetence. However, if it does not reject the application for annulment, it cannot validate the seizure before the commercial court rules on the existence of the seizure; In such a case, it must therefore declare its substantive jurisdiction by rejecting the nullity of the seizure and reserve the right to rule on its validity until the decision of the commercial court (2). Article 562.- The judicial officer who signed the act of recovery or opposition is required to prove, if necessary, the existence of the executor of the will at the time he granted the power of seizure.
under penalty of prohibition and damages for the parties. There is no doubt that restricted seizure can be blocked without title, but with the permission of the judge. To that end, Article 558 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “In the absence of a title, the judge of the domicile of the debtor as well as of the domicile of the third party seized may, by way of proceedings, allow the attachment of the detention or opposition. Article 569.- (Amended by Law 138 of 21 May 1971). The officials, banks and credit institutions referred to in Article 561 may not be summoned by the `yes` vote; However, they shall be required to issue to the attached party a report indicating the amount due, if it is liquid, if such proof is required by the seizure, provided that there is a document or an authentic decision establishing the validity of the seizure. Article 560.- A seizure or refusal in force abroad has no legal value in the Republic, and the courts are not competent to rule on its validity. The only way to inform the third party seized of the seizure is to notify the sheriff. Any other form is completely null. – The decision of the judge who represents the valid claim, which affirms the existence of the credit and the regularity of the seizure.
– Complaint and summons in force, an act by which the seizure informs the embargo holder of the embargo holder and summons him to appear before the court seized of the complaint on the validity of the seizure. THE condition of certainty of the claim for which the seizure is made must be fulfilled in the event of a detention embargo. Certainty is a matter of Hecbo. Article 551 of the Code of Civil Procedure (1). RESTRAINING SEIZURE Art. 2216 of the Civil Code. A seizure is not void because the creditor has attempted to do so for an amount greater than the amount due. In accordance with that provided for in Article 2216 of the Civil Code, a seizure is not void because the creditor has attempted to do so for an amount greater than the amount due; that it is true that the creditor may commit an abuse of rights because he has exaggerated the amount by a reprehensible facility. A creditor who has a private title does not need to seek or obtain the judge`s permission to block a garnishment with detention. In the event of the death of the debtor, the creditor is not obliged to inform the deceased`s successors of title while the seizure is in the preservation phase. The valid claim, if there is no binding title, necessarily implies a request for payment.
The court confirming the seizure must contain the payment by the same judgment, even if the creditor has not requested it in his submissions. If the seizure of the detention is blocked on the basis of a private title or an authorization of the judge, the valid request tends not only that the seizure is formally declared valid, but also (implicitly, necessarily and mainly) to carry out the examination of the supplementation and to order the debtor to pay the amount for which the seizure was made. Article 579.- If the confiscation or opposition is declared valid, the auction and distribution of its proceeds will be carried out, as indicated in the title Of the pro rata distribution. B. J. 494, September 1951, pp. 11.71-2 ↑ MAINTENANCE OF THE EMBARGO Affirmative statement. Object. Rallies.
Documents to be attached to this declaration. Copy of the insurance contract. With the introduction of the affirmation procedure in the event of preservation, the legislator has attempted to inform the addressee of the attachment and the judges representing the case of the exact and complete state of the legal relationship between the third party seized and the debtor seized; To achieve this objective, the third party must indicate in its affirmative statement all the facts and circumstances likely to influence the existence and amount of its debt. In this case, an insurance company made the following affirmative statement: “that E.B. has fire insurance under the number (?) with him. for an amount of up to 12,000 pesos and that the company is currently not in a position to be considered as a debtor for an amount against Mr. E.B. since the right to credit of the insured can only arise if it justifies that a loss suffered is fully covered by all the provisions of the policy”.
The Supreme Court has stated in this context that this declaration is inadequate and does not meet the requirements of article 573 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The insurance company had to disclose in its affirmative statement the terms and conditions to which it made the contract subject, the origin, certainty, liquidity or applicability of E.B.`s loan, as well as the reasons for the nullity, termination, dissolution or expiration of the insurance policy or its rights arising therefrom; These declarations were essential to inform the addressee of the seizure of the circumstances likely to modify the claim seized and to gain an idea of the de facto legal situation between B and the third party. The sentence was imposed for infringement of Article 573 of the Code of Civil Procedure (4). This seizure is based on the fact that the movable property to be seized is in the hands of a third party. The prototype of these embargoes is the one produced in the hands of banking institutions. Article 563.- During the eighth series of seizures of withholding and opposition with more than one day for three miles between the domicile of the latter and that of the debtor seized, the executor of the will is required to denounce the preservation or opposition against the debtor seized and to quote him validly. DETENTION EMBARGO STATEMENT IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. Documents to attach. Article 547 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Documents relating to the liens in the hands of the contracting company, as well as notices, reports, claims and the statement of losses related to the incineration of the insured property, must be attached; the documents that should have been in the possession of the company concerned, the seizure had an interest in knowing them, in order to be able to assess the accuracy of the positive declaration as well as the nature and scope of the rights of the insured and to take advantage of the possibility of exercising the rights and actions of the insured person in the oblique manner provided for in Article 1166 of the Civil Code (4).
Article 576.- If the declaration is not answered, no other procedure may be initiated either by or against the third seizure.