Facts:

The case involves a complaint filed by Gabriel C. Aristorenas, Pedro C. Aristorenas, Lita S. Aristorenas, Sotero M. Aristorenas, Jr., and Lauro C. Aristorenas against Rogelio S. Molina, a Deputy Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branches 24 and 25, Biñan, Laguna. The complaint was lodged on the grounds of "excess of and grave abuse of authority, usurpation of power, and conduct most prejudicial to the best interest of service." The complainants were defendants in Civil Case No. B-2722, where the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to pay a total of P23,600.00, which included titling expenses, attorney's fees, and costs of the suit. The complainants did not appeal the judgment, while a co-defendant's appeal was dismissed. Following a motion for execution filed by the plaintiffs, the trial court issued a writ of execution against the complainants, which was returned unsatisfied. The complainants subsequently filed a moti...

Facts:

1. Background of the Case:
   Complainants Gabriel, Pedro, Lita, Sotero, and Lauro Aristorenas were defendants in Civil Case No. B-2722 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Binan, Laguna. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to pay their respective shares of titling expenses, attorney's fees, and costs of the suit. The court also ordered the partition of the subject property among the co-owners.

2. Failure to Appeal:
   The complainants did not appeal the judgment. Their co-defendant, Melencio Caramay, filed an appeal, but it was dismissed by the Court of Appeals.

3. Issuance of Writ of Execution:
   On December 11, 1991, the trial court issued a writ of execution to enforce the money judgment against the complainants in the amount of P23,600.00. The writ was returned unsatisfied.

4. Subsequent Alias Writs:
   Several alias writs of execution were issued, all of which were returned unsatisfied. On August 6, 1993, the trial court issued another alias writ, leading to a Notice of Levy on November 15, 1993, and a Notice of Auction Sale on January 18, 1994.

5. Complainants' Allegations:
   The complainants accused Deputy Sheriff Rogelio S. Molina of:

   • Executing a judgment that was not yet final and executory.
   • Levying on the entire property instead of the undivided portion belonging to the complainants.
   • Levying on property worth millions to satisfy a P23,600.00 claim.
   • Failing to properly publish the Notice of Auction Sale.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Finality of Judgment:
   The judgment had become final and executory as the complainants did not appeal it. The sheriff's role in executing judgments is purely ministerial, and he has no discretion to refuse execution once ordered by the court.

2. Levy on Property:
   The Notice of Levy explicitly stated that the levy was on "all rights, title, shares, interest, and participation" of the complainants in the property. This was consistent with the court's order and did not constitute an overreach.

3. Value of the Property:
   The property's assessed value was only P9,884.27, as shown by the real property tax declaration. The complainants' claim that the property was worth millions was unsupported. The sheriff acted within his authority in levying on the property to satisfy the P23,600.00 claim.

4. Publication of Notice of Auction Sale:
   Section 18 of Rule 39, as amended, requires publication of the Notice of Auction Sale only if the property's value exceeds P50,000.00. Since the property's value was below this threshold, posting the notice in three public places was sufficient. The sheriff complied with the rules.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of bad faith, malice, or excess of authority on the part of Deputy Sheriff Rogelio S. Molina. The sheriff acted within his ministerial duties in executing the court's judgment.