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.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 179535)

Facts:

  • Transaction and Mortgage
    • In 1957, Pastor D. Ago purchased sawmill machineries and equipment from Grace Park Engineering, Inc. for a total price, executing a chattel mortgage to secure the unpaid balance of ₱32,000, payable in installments.
    • Ago defaulted on the installment payments, prompting Grace Park Engineering, Inc. to commence extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings in 1958.
  • Compromise Proceedings
    • To enjoin the foreclosure, Ago filed Special Civil Case No. 53 in the Court of First Instance of Agusan; the parties submitted a written compromise agreement signed by both.
    • On January 28, 1959, Judge Montano A. Ortiz dictated a decision in open court, adopting the terms of compromise as judgment.
  • Post-judgment Execution and Sale
    • Grace Park Engineering, Inc. moved for execution; the trial court issued an order on August 15, 1959, and a writ of execution dated September 23, 1959.
    • The Provincial Sheriff of Surigao levied on the machinery, posting a public auction set for December 4, 1959.
    • Ago alleged he received actual notice of the January 28 judgment only on September 25, 1959; he filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals on December 1, 1959.
    • The Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction on December 8, 1959, but the sale proceeded on December 4, 1959; Grace Park was the sole bidder at ₱15,000.
    • On November 9, 1960, the Court of Appeals dismissed Ago’s petition, holding that a judgment based on compromise is immediately executory and that pronouncement in open court suffices as notice.
  • Supreme Court Proceedings
    • Ago appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging (a) the sufficiency of open-court pronouncement as notice, (b) the legality of the sheriff’s sale without publication, and (c) the nature of the machineries as movables or immovables.
    • The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the appeal and required briefing on the issues.

Issues:

  • Does dictation of judgment in open court constitute valid rendition and notice under the Rules of Court?
  • Were the sheriff’s sale proceedings void for lack of prior publication as required for real property?
  • Did the installation of the machineries in a sawmill building convert them into immovable property?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.