Case Digest (G.R. No. 25726)
Facts:
Pantaleon E. Del Rosario v. Restituto Villegas, G.R. No. 25726, November 22, 1926, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villa‑Real, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff‑appellant Pantaleon E. Del Rosario appealed from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros which declared void the sheriff’s proceedings in execution, absolved the defendant Restituto Villegas, and ordered the plaintiff to recognize the defendant’s rights in the lands in dispute.The litigation traces to civil Case No. 432 in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros in which Broadwell Hagans, as administrator of the estates of the deceased Juan Melgar and Vicenta Escio, obtained a judgment against Restituto Villegas and Nena Mercader. An appeal in that matter (G.R. No. 17315) was affirmed by this Court (promulgated April 26, 1922), directing the defendants to restore possession and to account for fruits and improvements for specified years and at specified prices for certain years, but leaving prices for later years to market quotations.
Pursuant to the remittitur, a writ of execution issued July 24, 1922. The provincial sheriff, guided by a letter from Hagans’ attorneys and by local merchants’ information, estimated quantities and fixed prices for corn and coconuts beyond what the judgment itself specified, demanded payment from Villegas, and when Villegas refused, levied and sold the two parcels at public auction on September 26, 1922, adjudicating them to Hagans without deposit of sale expenses. Hagans later petitioned the court to compel the sheriff to execute a conveyance; despite lack of notice to Villegas, the court ordered execution and the sheriff executed a deed October 31, 1923. On April 1, 1924 Hagans conveyed the property to Pantaleon E. Del Rosario for P4,000; Del Rosario had the deed noted and registered under Act No. 2837.
Villegas opposed Del Rosario’s possession and Del Rosario sued for recovery and sought a preliminary injunction; a receiver was appointed and Villegas later took possession upon filing bond. After trial the Court of First Instance, on December 23, 1924, absolved Villegas and dismissed Del Rosario’s complaint. Del Rosario moved for a new trial (Feb. 1, 1925); the motion was granted (Aug. 22, 1925) and at the new trial (Sept. 17, 1925) the court admitted additional evidence for the defendant over plaintiff’s objection. The court again rendered judgment declaring the sheriff’s proceedings and sale null and void and ordering Del Rosario to recognize Villegas’ rights; Del Rosario ap...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in permitting the defendant to present additional evidence at the new trial?
- Was the auction sale to Broadwell Hagans effective given that he did not deposit payment and did not pay the expenses of the sale?
- Did the provincial sheriff exceed his authority by fixing quantities and market prices of crops not ascertainable from the judgment, thereby rendering the levy and sale null and void?
- Can Pantaleon E. Del Rosario, a registered grantee under Act No. 2837, claim valid title as a purchaser in good faith despite def...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)