Short answer. No. Where the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the rule expressly provides that the filing of an indemnity bond shall not be required of the judgment creditor.
What the law says
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required
Rule 39, Section 16 — Proceedings where property claimed by third person. Read the full provision →
The ordinary rule, and the exception for the Republic
Normally, when a third person claims levied property and serves an affidavit of title, the levying officer is not bound to keep the property unless the judgment creditor files an approved bond to indemnify the claimant, in a sum not less than the value of the property. The rule then removes that requirement in one situation: where the writ is issued in favour of the Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly representing it.
What this changes for a third-party claimant
The practical effect is that the fund the rule ordinarily points you towards is not there. Where a bond exists, a claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property is enforced against it, and must be brought within one hundred twenty days from the bond's filing. Where no bond is required, that route is unavailable, and the remedies that remain are the ones directed at the property and at the officer.
How the rule deals with the levying officer instead
The same passage substitutes a different arrangement. If the sheriff or levying officer is sued for damages as a result of the levy, that officer shall be represented by the Solicitor General, and if held liable, the actual damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of such funds as may be appropriated for the purpose. So responsibility is not extinguished; it is channelled through the government rather than through a private surety.
The route that stays open in every case
Whatever the identity of the judgment creditor, the rule preserves a separate path: nothing in it prevents the claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action. Where the levy is at the instance of the Republic, that action, together with the third-party claim itself, is generally the centre of the matter. Serve the affidavit of title on the levying officer and a copy on the judgment creditor, stating the grounds of your right or title.
What the exception does not decide
Dispensing with the bond says nothing about whether the property is yours. It affects the security available to you, not the merits of your claim to the thing levied on. So the third-party claim itself, and the separate action the rule preserves, remain the substantive contest. Serve the affidavit of title promptly and state the grounds of your right or title with particularity, since that affidavit is what puts your claim before the levying officer and the judgment creditor in the first place.