Case Digest (G.R. No. 146996)
Facts:
Aurora Guiang v. Eva T. Co, G.R. No. 146996, July 30, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Aurora Guiang was defendant in Civil Case No. 0809 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago, Isabela, Branch 21. On September 10, 1992, the RTC rendered judgment ordering Guiang to pay respondent Eva T. Co the principal sum of P64,870.00 with 18% interest per annum from August 3, 1990 until fully paid; the decision became final and executory and the trial court issued a writ of execution.
Pursuant to the writ, Deputy Sheriff David R. Medina levied thirty (30) parcels of land owned by Guiang, served a Notice of Levy and Auction Sale, and conducted a public auction on May 27, 1993, at which respondent bought the properties for P308,701.00. A Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale was executed in respondent’s favor; Guiang received a copy on August 20, 1993. After failing to redeem, Deputy Sheriff Medina executed a Deed of Final Sale on August 16, 1995 and titles were issued to respondent on August 31, 1995.
Guiang then filed a new action in RTC, Branch 35, as Civil Case No. 2096, for redemption of the foreclosed properties, consignation of payment (claiming her indebtedness amounted to P112,574.00), and damages, alleging offers to pay were refused. The RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 2096 on November 8, 1996. Guiang appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 56850), but her appeal was dismissed on August 10, 1998 for failure to file appellant’s brief; reconsideration was denied and entry of judgment was recorded on February 10, 1999.
On August 29, 2000, Guiang filed before the Court of Appeals a petition styled as one for annulment of the writ of execution and processes issued in Civil Case No. 0809 (CA-G.R. SP No. 60427), alleging that Deputy Sheriff Medina violated Section 15 and Section 21, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court by levying and selling all thirty lots together (and for a lump sum) instead of selling only what was necessary or selling lots separately as required. The CA dismissed the petition on September 25, 2000, holding that Guiang’s remedy was to appeal the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petitioner’s CA petition for annulment of the writ of execution a proper remedy under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court to annul the writ and related execution processes?
- Was the petitioner’s proper remedy to assail the alleged irregular levy and sale for violation of Sections 15 and 21, Rule 39 before the Court of Appeals, or should she have first moved before the trial court and, if aggrieved by that court’s ruling, sought relief by...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)