Case Digest (G.R. No. 4932)
Facts:
Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited v. Ramon F. Santos, G.R. No. 4932. November 16, 1909, the Supreme Court, Johnson, J., writing for the Court.On August 18, 1906, Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited (plaintiff/appellee) filed a mortgage foreclosure action in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Albay against Ramon F. Santos (defendant/appellant). The defendant was served but did not appear within the prescribed time, and a default judgment was entered on September 14, 1906. The case was thereafter tried on the merits; the trial court awarded the plaintiff P11,928.77 plus interest at ten percent per annum liquidated monthly from June 1906, and P1,500 as attorney’s fees, ordering that failure to pay by the next term would permit execution against the mortgaged property.
After the judgment remained unsatisfied, on March 6, 1908 the trial judge issued an execution directing the sheriff to sell the mortgaged land. The sheriff sold the property on April 10, 1908; his return showed a sale price of P4,715. On April 14, 1908, the plaintiff moved the lower court to confirm the sheriff’s sale. The defendant appeared for the first time in the lower court on April 21, 1908 and objected to confirmation, asserting that he had found a prospective purchaser willing to pay about P5,500—roughly P800 more than the sheriff’s bid—but that this prospective buyer was discovered ten to twelve days after the sale.
The Court of First Instance considered the objection, overruled it, and confirmed the sale on April 21, 1908. The defendant excepted and brought a bill of exceptions to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the confirmation of the sale and the adjudication of the property to the purchaser...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the defendant’s late objection to the confirmation of the sheriff’s sale timely or otherwise sufficient to justify setting aside the sale?
- Did the sale’s alleged inadequacy of price (the sheriff’s sale at P4,715 versus a later-found offer of about P5,500) alone constitute such gross inadequacy or unfairness as to require vac...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)