INHERITED PROPERTY AS CONJUGAL???

We are 5 siblings (all alive.)
Father died in 2009. Mother died in 2000.
Father was slapped (father only) with a collection case of a few thousand pesos in '96 which ballooned now to half a million.
Complainant attached titled properties to their case and a writ came out last week ordering us to vacate the property. Order came out in 2006.
Said attached property is still named after my grandparents (mother side) who are also deceased. There's no judicial partition. Mother side has still 2 surviving siblings. older brother, and her younger sister. Both of which we are not in good terms.
-Writ/order has cited the whole property. Shouldn't the court just order to take the share of my father, since we 5 siblings are still alive? Shouldn't the property be divided into six? or eight? Seems like the court treated the property as conjugal, but in fact for me its inherited property. Father never purchased this property. Although a house was built on it.

Thank you in advance.

before a clear and definite answer can be given, please provide us concrete facts on the following matters:

1. date of marriage of your father and mother
2. kanino naka title ang property na na attached? gusto ko lang i clear, kasi sabi mo nakapangalan pa sa grandparents (mother side) mo ba ang title.

3. sino ba ang nagfile ng case? iyong siblings ng mother mo?

@taxconsultantdavao, hi!

1. date of marriage of your father and mother ---> 1964
2. kanino naka title ang property na na attached? gusto ko lang i clear, kasi sabi mo nakapangalan pa sa grandparents (mother side) mo ba ang title. ---> My grandfather's name. Mother's side.

3. sino ba ang nagfile ng case? iyong siblings ng mother mo? ---> hindi po uncle and auntie ko, its a private company ang complainant.

Grandparents are deceased and so are my parents..

You can challenge the issuance of the writ as the true owner of the property is not yet your father. It was just assumed.

Rule 57 states that

At the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the following cases

Only the true owner may claim the property and hence be subjected to the writ of attachment. In your case, the true owner is your grandparents not your Father so the writ can be challenged.

Even arguing that your father may be part owner of the property, the writ may be only applied as much as only to the part.

look up when the case became final, if it was more than 5 years ago, then argue that it can no longer be executed. and you are right that only the part which pertains to your father can be executed upon.