Facts:

The case involves petitioners Leonardo Amper and his wife Leonisa C. Amper against several respondents, including the Hon. Presiding Judge of Branch III of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Deputy Sheriff Ismael Wahiman, the Register of Deeds of Gingoog City, and private respondent Ignacio Naduma. The events leading to this case began when Naduma filed a complaint in Civil Case No. 2454 against the Amper couple and their son Cocoy Amper for recovery of possession and damages concerning a parcel of land in Samay, Gingoog City, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-4815. Naduma claimed ownership of the land, asserting that he and his predecessors had been in continuous and peaceful possession since 1940. He alleged that the Amper family unlawfully entered the southern portion of the land, harvested crops, and altered boundary markers.

During the trial, the court appointed a geodetic engineer to determine the boundaries of the disputed land, which resu...

Facts:

Background of the Civil Case

• The main civil case involved a dispute over the possession and damages of a parcel of land described in Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-4815, located in Samay, Gingoog City.
• Plaintiff Ignacio Naduma alleged continuous, public, adverse, and peaceful possession since 1940, having introduced significant improvements on the land, which was demarcated by cement posts, coconut trees, and other plantings.
• Defendants, namely Leonardo Amper, his wife Leonisa C. Amper, and others, were accused of unlawfully entering the southern portion of the land as early as 1962, harvesting coffee, bananas, and other crops, and removing boundary markers.
• The dispute further involved allegations that defendants, by strategic and surreptitious actions, had encroached upon and enclosed the disputed area with a wire fence.
• In the trial court, after issues such as defendants’ default (and subsequent reconsideration of default) and presentation of evidence by a geodetic engineer (Mr. Celedonio Mondigo) to relocate the common boundary, a judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff Naduma.
• The judgment ordered the defendants:
• To vacate the disputed area (1,315.99 square meters) and restore possession to Naduma;
• To pay actual damages amounting to P7,200.00, attorney’s fees of P400.00, and the costs of the suit.

Execution Proceedings and Writ of Execution

• Following the finality and executory nature of the decision, the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental issued a writ of execution to satisfy the judgment due to the defendants’ failure to pay the mandated sums.
• The writ led to the levy on several properties belonging to Leonardo Amper, including:
• A parcel of land (coffee and maizal) situated at Samay, Gingoog City, under Tax Declaration No. 13439;
• Another parcel (coffee and maizal) with Certificate of Title No. P-5307 under Tax Declaration No. 00549;
• A parcel of land cocal located at Kidisin, Gingoog City, under Tax Declaration No. 13638;
• A parcel of land (coffee) with Certificate of Title No. P-5306 under Tax Declaration No. 13441.
• The auction sale of these properties was conducted by the deputy provincial sheriff on October 3, 1972, as a means to satisfy the court’s judgment.

Petition and Legal Arguments

• Petitioners Leonardo Amper and his wife sought to annul the writ of execution and the consequent public auction sale.
• They contended that the sale of properties acquired under the Homestead Law and titled on July 25 and July 26, 1965, was null and void ab initio pursuant to Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act).
• The petitioners relied on the precedent set in Artates v. Urbi (37 SCRA 395), arguing that any damages, even if imposed by a judgment, should be considered as a debt incurred within the five-year protection period for homesteads.
• Additionally, petitioners argued that one of the parcels (under Tax Declaration No. 13638) should be deemed their family home and thus exempt from the auction.
• Contrarily, it was shown that no registration of a declaration establishing the family home, as required by the Civil Code, had been made.

Determination of the Relevant Time Period and Applicability of the Law

• The protection under Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 covers a five-year period starting from the issuance of the free patent or homestead title.
• The properties in contention, with titles issued in 1965, fell outside the five-year protection window by the time of the auction sale in 1972.
• Even if the court considered the debt as incurred earlier, the lower court’s judgment did not become final until after the expiration of the critical five-year period.

Resolution at Lower and Appellate Levels

• Defendants’ appeal to the Court of Appeals was eventually dismissed, making the judgment final and executory.
• Consequently, the subsequent auction sale executed by the sheriff was carried out legally, leading to the initiation of the current petition for certiorari and prohibition by the petitioners.

Issue:

Whether the public auction sale of the petitioners’ properties, executed to satisfy the judgment in the recovery of possession and damages case, is valid despite the petitioners’ claim of homestead protections.

• Specifically, whether Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, which prohibits alienation or encumbrance of homestead lands within five years from issuance, applies to the execution sale.
• Whether classifying the debts from the lawsuit (actual damages and attorney’s fees) under the term “debts” for which homesteads are exempt is proper, considering the timing of when such debts were incurred and became final.
• Whether the parcel of land under Tax Declaration No. 13638 may be exempt from execution as it was argued to form part of the petitioners’ family home despite the lack of a registered declaration under the Civil Code.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)