Facts:

The case revolves around a complaint filed on July 14, 1995, involving Complainants Gabriel C. Aristorenas, Pedro C. Aristorenas, Lita S. Aristorenas, Sotero M. Aristorenas, Jr., and Lauro C. Aristorenas against Respondent Rogelio S. Molina, a Deputy Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branches 24 and 25, Biñan, Laguna. The background of the case stems from Civil Case No. B-2722, where the complainants were defendants. The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision favoring the plaintiffs, ordering the complainants to pay titling expenses of ₱6,000, attorney's fees amounting to ₱5,000, and costs of the suit, along with ordering the partition of the subject property. The complainants did not appeal this judgment. Following a motion for execution filed by the plaintiffs, the trial court issued a writ of execution on December 11, 1991, against the complainants for a total amount due of ₱23,600. The complainants challenged the writ of execution, but this was denied, leading...

Facts:

Background of the Civil Case

• Complainants: Gabriel C. Aristoreñas, Pedro C. Aristoreñas, Lita S. Aristoreñas, Sotero M. Aristoreñas, and Lauro C. Aristoreñas.
• In Civil Case No. B-2722 before Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Binan, Laguna, the complainants were among the defendants.
• The trial court issued a judgment in favor of their co-plaintiff, Benito Perez, ordering:
• Payment of respective shares for titling expenses amounting to P6,000.00.
• Joint and several liability for attorney’s fees (P5,000.00) and an appearance fee of P600.00 per court appearance.
• The partition of the subject property among the registered co-owners pursuant to Rule 69 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Execution of the Judgment

• The complainants did not appeal from the judgment, and an appeal by their co-defendant, Melencio Caramay, was dismissed.
• On December 11, 1991, the trial court issued a writ of execution against the complainants for an amount of P23,600.00.
• The initial writ, as well as several subsequent alias writs, were returned unsatisfied.
• Pursuant to an order dated August 6, 1993, an alias writ of execution was issued on September 16, 1993.
• Following this, the respondent, Deputy Sheriff Rogelio S. Molina, issued a Notice of Levy (November 15, 1993) and a Notice of Auction Sale (January 18, 1994).

Allegations and Contentions of the Complainants

• Execution of Judgment Not Yet Final and Executory
• Complainants argued that there was no partition of the property as mandated by the trial court’s judgment, implying that such judgment had not yet attained finality and executory character.
• They contended that the trial court’s decision concerning partition was within its own jurisdiction and not subject to interference by the executing officer.
• Excessive and Improper Levy
• They asserted that the entire property had been levied upon instead of the undivided shares that pertained to them.
• They claimed the property, allegedly “worth millions of pesos”, was excessively encumbered to satisfy a money claim of merely P23,600.00.
• Procedural Irregularities in the Notice of Auction Sale
• Complainants alleged that the requisite publications as provided by Section 18 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court were not properly effected.
• They contended that the failure in proper publication rendered the Notice of Auction Sale defective.

Respondent’s Position and Procedural Compliance

• The respondent maintained that his role in executing the judgment was purely ministerial.
• He asserted that he had no discretion in executing the judgment, citing Supreme Court decisions such as Windor Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Smith Bell & Company v. Saur.
• With regard to the levy, the Notice stated that it applied to “all rights, title, shares, interest and participation” which the complainants might have in the property.
• Concerning the Notice of Auction Sale, the respondent argued that the property’s assessed value of P9,884.27 (as shown in the real property tax declaration) did not require publication under the threshold of P50,000.00 as mandated by the amended Section 18.

Issue:

Whether the execution of a judgment that had not yet been partitioned and thus deemed not final and executory was proper.

• The issue centers on the authority of the trial court over matters of partition and whether the executing officer may refuse to act pending such partition.

Whether the levy imposed on the entire property, instead of solely on the complainants’ undivided portions, constituted an abuse of authority.

• This includes examining the extent and manner in which collateral property rights were affected.

Whether the levy on property allegedly “worth millions of pesos” to satisfy a money claim of P23,600.00 exceeded the bounds of reasonable execution of the judgment.

• This issue involves assessing the propriety and proportionality of the executed levy.

Whether the Notice of Auction Sale was defective in terms of its publication requirements under Section 18 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court.

• The issue requires an evaluation of whether proper notice was provided, considering the assessed property value.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)