Case Digest (G.R. No. 35726)
Facts:
The case involves Braulio Balagtas et al. as plaintiffs and Ciriaca Arguelles as the defendant, with Fernando Quisumbing as the appellant. The events leading to the case unfolded in Laguna, where on March 19, 1931, the plaintiffs filed a motion in civil case No. 5396, requesting the court to order the sheriff to execute a deed of redemption for properties that had been sold at an execution sale to Fernando Quisumbing for the nominal amount of P10. The properties in question were valued at approximately P35,000. The court granted the redemption on March 27, 1931. Subsequently, on April 10, 1931, Quisumbing filed a motion for reconsideration against this order, which was denied by the Court of First Instance of Laguna on April 21, 1931. Quisumbing then appealed the decision, raising three assignments of error regarding the execution sale and the validity of the sheriff's actions.
Issue:
- Was the execution sale conducted by the sherif...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 35726)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- The case involves an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Laguna dated April 21, 1931, denying a motion for reconsideration filed by Fernando Quisumbing on April 10, 1931.
- The plaintiffs, Braulio Balagtas et al., filed a motion on March 19, 1931, in civil cause No. 5396, requesting the sheriff to execute a deed of redemption for properties sold at an execution sale to Fernando Quisumbing for P10. The redemption was granted by the court on March 27, 1931.
Execution Sale:
- The properties in question were valued at P35,000 but were sold to Quisumbing for only P10 at an execution sale.
- The deputy sheriff, Quirino P. Tesoro, issued an "aviso" (notice) on January 6, 1931, announcing the sale of the properties on January 19, 1931. The notice described the properties as "all and any rights" that the judgment debtors had in civil case No. 5396.
Defects in the Sale Process:
- The notice did not specify whether the properties were real or personal, nor did it describe the properties in detail.
- The sale was conducted without proper compliance with the requirements of Section 457 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that real property must be sold in separate lots and personal property must be sold in parcels likely to fetch the highest price.
- The notice period for the sale was also insufficient, as the notice was posted only 13 days before the sale, contrary to the 20-day requirement for real property under Section 454 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issue:
- Whether the execution sale conducted by the deputy sheriff was valid.
- Whether the plaintiffs were required to redeem the properties sold at the execution sale.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the execution sale was null and void due to the deputy sheriff's failure to comply with the procedural requirements under Sections 454 and 457 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court dismissed the case and held that the plaintiffs were not required to redeem the properties.
Ratio:
Compliance with Legal Requirements:
- Section 457 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that real property be sold in separate lots and personal property be sold in parcels likely to bring the highest price. The deputy sheriff failed to comply with these requirements by selling the properties as a single unit without proper description.
- Section 454 mandates specific notice periods for the sale of real and personal property. The notice in this case was posted only 13 days before the sale, which was insufficient for real property (20 days required) and unclear for personal property.
Validity of the Sale:
- A sale conducted without proper notice or in violation of procedural requirements is null and void. The court cited precedents (Campomanes vs. Bartolome and Germann & Co., 38 Phil. 808; Borja vs. Addison, 44 Phil. 895) to emphasize that such sales confer no title to the purchaser.
Redemption Not Required:
- Since the execution sale was invalid, the plaintiffs were not obligated to redeem the properties. The court dismissed the case and ordered the appellant, Fernando Quisumbing, to bear the costs.