G.R. No. 46623 - Kasilag vs. Rodriguez

Goulds Pumps International (Phil.), Inc. filed a complaint in the City Court of Cebu against Julian S. Yap (and initially his wife) for P1,459.30 as balance of purchase and installation of a water pump, plus 12% interest, attorney’s fees (25%), and costs.
Defendants failed to appear; plaintiff was allowed to present evidence ex parte. On November 25, 1968, City Court rendered judgment in favor of Goulds for the amounts claimed.

Yap appealed to the CFI, Branch V (Judge Tanada). A pre-trial set on August 28, 1969 was “intransferable” after prior postponement. Yap filed an eleventh-hour ex parte motion for postponement which was denied; he was declared in default by Order of August 28, 1969.
Goulds presented evidence ex parte. On August 29, 1969, judgment by default was rendered ordering Yap to pay P1,459.30 plus 12% interest from August 12, 1968, 25% attorney’s fees, and costs. Notice was served September 1, 1969.

Yap filed multiple motions for reconsideration (September 16, 1969; October 17, 1969; October 29, 1969; others) claiming desire for amicable settlement, discrepancies in price, breach of warranty, and procedural defects. None were supported by affidavits of merit as required under Rule 37. All were denied (October 10, 1969; October 23, 1969; January 26, 1970; April 28, 1970).
On October 15, 1969, Judge Tanada issued the first writ of execution. The sheriff levied on the pump, scheduled sale for November 14, 1969. Although Judge Tanada on November 6, 1969 suspended execution pending resolution of Yap’s October 29 motion, the order was not transmitted to the sheriff. Auction proceeded; Goulds purchased the pump.

On May 9, 1970, Judge Tanada issued an alias writ of execution. Yap, notified June 11, 1970, moved (June 23, 1970) to set aside the execution sale and quash the alias writ, alleging the judgment was non-final, vague/incomplete (interest period, “other expenses” undefined), defective (no statement of facts), sale without proper notice (pump deemed immovable), and seeking to prove damages from alleged irregularities.
Goulds opposed. By Order of September 16, 1970, Judge Tanada denied Yap’s motion as moot and academic—judgment became final on October 1, 1969—and held that Yap’s motions for new trial lacked the required affidavit of merit. On September 21, 1970, he authorized completion of execution through the Cebu City Sheriff. Yap’s motion for reconsideration was denied November 21, 1970.

Yap filed Notices of Appeal on December 3, 1970 to challenge the September 16 and November 21, 1970 orders. Petition for review on certiorari was filed January 5, 1971, raising four errors of law regarding (a) execution on non-final, vague judgment; (b) sale despite suspension order; (c) invalid sale without required notice for immovables; and (d) denial to prove damages from execution process.

Whether the trial court erred in issuing execution on a judgment that was allegedly incomplete, vague, and non-final.
Whether the execution sale was valid despite the trial court’s own suspension order not communicated to the sheriff.
Whether the sale of the water pump (claimed immovable) without publication notice under Rule 39, Sec. 18 rendered the execution void.
Whether Yap was entitled to prove and recover damages for alleged irregularities in the execution process.