Title
Ago vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-17898
Decision Date
Oct 31, 1962
Petitioner defaulted on payments for sawmill machinery, leading to foreclosure. Supreme Court ruled execution void due to lack of proper notice, deemed machinery immovable, and invalidated sheriff's sale for non-compliance with publication rules.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17898)

Facts:

    Background of the Transaction

    • In 1957, petitioner Pastor D. Ago purchased sawmill machineries and equipments from respondent Grace Park Engineering, Inc.
    • To secure payment of an outstanding balance of P32,000.00 payable by installments, Pastor D. Ago executed a chattel mortgage over the said machineries and equipments.

    Default and Initiation of Legal Proceedings

    • Petitioner defaulted on his payments, prompting respondent Grace Park Engineering, Inc. to institute extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings in 1958.
    • In response, petitioner filed Special Civil Case No. 53 in the Court of First Instance of Agusan to enjoin the foreclosure action.

    Compromise Agreement and Judgment

    • The parties reached a compromise agreement, which they submitted in writing to the court, duly signed by both Pastor D. Ago and Grace Park Engineering, Inc.
    • On January 28, 1959, the Hon. Montano A. Ortiz, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Agusan, rendered a judgment in open court based on this compromise agreement.

    Writ of Execution and Subsequent Sale

    • On August 15, 1959, following a motion for execution by respondent, the Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution.
    • A writ dated September 23, 1959, was subsequently executed by the Provincial Sheriff of Surigao, who levied the machineries and equipments.
    • The machineries and equipments, installed in a sawmill building owned by Golden Pacific Sawmill, Inc. in Lianga, Surigao del Sur, were thus subject to sale at public auction.

    Petitioner’s Allegations and Petition for Certiorari

    • Petitioner contended that even though the judgment was dictated in open court on January 28, 1959, he did not receive a formal and valid copy of the judgment until September 25, 1959.
    • He argued that the issuance of the writ of execution prior to the receipt of a correctly served copy of the judgment was unauthorized and constituted an excess of judicial authority.
    • Further, petitioner challenged the public auction sale, asserting that the necessary publication and advertisement of the sale notice were not complied with as required by law.

Issue:

    Validity of Notice of Judgment

    • Does the open court rendition of the judgment fulfill the requirement of formal and valid service?
    • Is the mere fact of a party’s presence in court and hearing the judgment being dictated sufficient to constitute proper notice?

    Compliance with Execution and Sale Requirements

    • Was the issuance of the writ of execution valid considering that the petitioner was not properly served with the signed and filed judgment?
    • Is the public auction sale of the sawmill machineries and equipments valid when conducted without the mandatory notice publication and advertisement as prescribed by the Rules of Court?

    Nature of the Sawmill Machineries and Equipments

    • Given the installation of the machineries in a building, should they be classified as movable or, by virtue of becoming a permanent part of the real estate, as immovable property?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research tool in the Philippines with case digests and full jurisprudence. AI summaries highlight key points but might skip important details or context. Always check the full text for accuracy.