Title
Arante vs. Rosel
Case
G.R. No. L-5292
Decision Date
May 13, 1953
Defendants contested a public auction sale of land, alleging irregularities; Supreme Court upheld denial of relief, citing alternative remedy via separate civil action.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5292)

Facts:

  1. Forcible Entry and Detainer Case: The Court of First Instance of Leyte confirmed the judgment of the justice of the peace, ejecting the defendants (Arcadio Rosel et al.) from the contested land. The plaintiffs (Pelagia Arante et al.) were placed in possession by the sheriff.
  2. Execution of Judgment: To satisfy the award of damages and costs, the sheriff seized another piece of land (tax declaration No. 5467) owned by defendant Esteban Rosel.
  3. Public Auction: The notice of sale was published in The Midweek Reporter on September 14, 21, and 28, 1949, and posted in Leyte and Tacloban. The property was sold on September 30, 1949, to plaintiff Pelagia Arante for P352.10.
  4. Certificate of Final Sale: The sheriff executed the certificate of final sale on October 10, 1950, as no one redeemed the property.
  5. Petition for Relief: On January 10, 1951, Esteban Rosel filed a petition to annul the sale, alleging irregularities:
    • Insufficient notice of the auction sale.
    • Publication not made in a newspaper with general circulation in the province.
  6. Trial Court's Initial Decision: The district judge annulled the sale on March 13, 1951, due to the alleged irregularities.
  7. Motion for Reconsideration: Plaintiffs filed a motion on March 30, 1951, arguing that the publication requirements were met and that the petition for relief was improper under Rule 38.
  8. Defendants' Objections: Defendants reiterated their claims and added:
    • The auction was held in Tacloban instead of Leyte.
    • The sale price was shockingly inadequate (property valued at P5,000).
    • Collusion between the sheriff and plaintiffs.
  9. Second Judge's Decision: Another judge revoked the March 13, 1951, order, finding adequate notice and ruling that the petition for relief was improper under Rule 38. The judge noted that defendants had already filed a separate civil action (Civil Case No. 576) to annul the sale.

Issue:

  1. Whether the petition for relief under Rule 38 was proper.
  2. Whether the public auction sale was valid despite the alleged irregularities.
  3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the petition for relief.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.