Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1936 > October 1936 Decisions > G.R. No. 43762 October 31, 1936 - TAN SOO HUAT v. PEDRO ONGWICO

063 Phil 746:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 43762. October 31, 1936.]

TAN SOO HUAT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO ONGWICO, Defendant-Appellant. MONICO UY YT, judicial administrator of the deceased Ignacio Uy Quimbo, Intervenor-Appellee.

Potenciano A. Magtibay for Appellant.

Jose G. Macatangay for appellee Uy Yt.

No appearance for appellee Tan Soo Huat.

SYLLABUS


1. SHERIFFS; SALE AT PUBLIC AUCTION OF REAL PROPERTY BY VIRTUE OF EXECUTION; PURCHASERS; RIGHT TO POSSESSION AFTER PERIOD OF REDEMPTION HAS EXPIRED. — In Pabico v. Ong Pauco (43 Phil., 572), Flores v. Lim (50 Phil., 738), and Powell v. National Bank (54 Phil., 54), this court held, contrary to the ruling in Diaz v. Azcune (31 Phil., 213), that in this jurisdiction the purchaser at a sheriff’s sale of real property is not entitled to possession thereof within the year fixed by law for its redemption; but this case is not applicable to the case at hand, because the period of redemption has already expired, and the movant is to be placed in possession after the issuance and delivery of the final certificates of sale. The form of the deed of sale found in section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure says in part that by virtue of said deed the purchaser is entitled to have and to hold the purchased property. This, in our opinion, means that the purchaser is entitled to go immediately upon the real property and that it is the sheriff’s inescapable duty to place him in such possession.

2. ID.; ID.; ACTION FOR POSSESSION; NECESSITY. — There is no law in this jurisdiction whereby the purchaser at a sheriff’s sale of real property is obliged to bring a separate and independent suit for possession after the one-year period for redemption has expired and after he has obtained the sheriff’s final certificate of sale. There is neither legal ground nor reason of public policy precluding the court from ordering the sheriff in this case to yield possession of the property purchased at public auction where it appears that the judgment debtor is the one in possession thereof and no rights of third persons are involved.


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


Tan Soo Hua, plaintiff, obtained a money judgment against Pedro F. Ongwico, defendant, in civil case No. 41907 of the Court of First Instance of Manila. On the issuance of a writ of execution the provincial sheriff of Tayabas levied on two parcels of land belonging to the defendant and sold them to Ignacio to Ignacio Uy Quimco, as the highest bidder for P2,487.65. Under section 463 of the Code of Civil Procedure, certificates of sale dated September 13 and December 9, 1933, were issued to the vendee, subject to the right of repurchase within one year as provided in the aforecited section and in sections 464 and 465 of the same Code.

The period for redemption expired and neither the judgment debtor nor any other person had repurchased the property. The purchaser having died, his judicial administrator, Monico Uy Yt, filed a motion in the case asking that the provincial sheriff be ordered to issue to him the final certificates of sale pursuant to section 466 of said Code and to place him in possession of the property. The defendant challenged the motion in writing alleging that the court was without jurisdiction over the subject matter involved therein. The latter, however, after trial, granted the motion and ordered the provincial sheriff to issue the final certificates of sale and to place the movant in possession of the property purchased by the deceased. Having presented a motion for reconsideration which was denied, the defendant brought this appeal.

Defendant’s brief assigns two errors, namely, that the court went against the law in ordering the provincial sheriff to yield possession to the movant of the property purchased by his predecessor at the public sale, and in denying his motion for reconsideration.

Defendant insists that the court was without jurisdiction to order the sheriff to place the movant in possession of the property sold. Without pointing out any applicable law, defendant cites American authorities to the effect that in the absence of any legal rule, the purchaser cannot go upon the real property purchased at a judicial sale, but should bring a separate action for the recovery of ownership or for ejectments, as the case may be.

In Pabico v. Ong Pauco (43 Phil., 572), Flores v. Lim (50 Phil., 738), and Powell v. National Bank (54 Phil., 54), we have held, contrary to the ruling in Diaz v. Azcune (31 Phil., 213), that in this jurisdiction the purchaser at sheriff’s sale of real property is not entitled to have possession thereof within the year fixed by law for its redemption; but this case is not applicable to the case at hand, because the period of redemption has already expired, and the movant is to be placed in possession after the issuance and delivery of the final certificates of sale. The form of the deed of sale found in section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure says in part that by virtue of said deed the purchaser is entitled to have and to hold the purchased property. This, in our opinion, means that the purchaser is entitled to go immediately upon the real property and that it is the sheriff’s inescapable duty to place him in such possession.

There is no law in this jurisdiction whereby the purchaser at a sheriff’s sale of real property is obliged to bring a separate and independent suit for possession after the one-year period for redemption has expired and after he has obtained the sheriff’s final certificate of sale. There is neither legal ground nor reason of public policy precluding the court from ordering the sheriff in this case to yield possession of the property purchased at public auction where it appears that the judgment debtor is the one in possession thereof and no rights of third persons are involved.

In view of the fact that the period of redemption has expired, that the right to redeem has not been exercised, and that the judgment debtor, and not a third person, is in possession of the real property sold, we hold that the movant is entitled to the issuance of the deeds of sale and to the possession prayed for, not being obliged to bring a separate action for possession.

Being founded upon the same grounds which we held untenable, the court properly denied the motion for reconsideration.

Wherefore, the appealed order is affirmed, with the costs in this instance to the defendant-appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Diaz and Laurel, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1936 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 44831 October 8, 1936 - CHUA KE, ET AL. v. QUIRICO ABETO, ET AL.

    063 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 45053 October 19, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRIACO PIRING, ET AL.

    063 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. 45137 October 20, 1936 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    063 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 42134 October 21, 1936 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ISIDORO ABAJA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-42958 October 21, 1936 - C.N. HODGES v. CARLOTA SALAS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 43304 October 21, 1936 - ANTONIO F. AQUINO v. TOMAS DEALA

    063 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 43504 October 22, 1936 - INDALECIO DE TORRES v. VICENTE ONA

    063 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 42539 October 23, 1936 - SULPICIO RESURRECCION v. AGUSTIN JAVIER, ET AL.

    063 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 45100 October 26, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO DIOKNO, ET AL.

    063 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 45161 October 26, 1936 - ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, ET AL.

    063 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 45163 October 26, 1936 - ELPIDIO JAVELLANA v. LA PAZ ICE PLANT AND COLD STORAGE CO., INC.

    063 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 44304 October 27, 1936 - LEVY HERMANOS v. SIMEON C. CAPULE

    063 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 45332 October 27, 1936 - BRUNO AREVALO, ET AL. v. RICARDO NEPOMUCENO, ET AL.

    063 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 42092 October 28, 1936 - FELISA CAMIA DE REYES v. JUANA REYES DE ILANO

    063 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. 45237 October 28, 1936 - MARIANO MOLO v. A.L. YATCO

    063 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 41697 October 30, 1936 - SEVERO JOSUE v. FAUSTO DIAZ

    063 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 42338 October 30, 1936 - PEDRO LACASTE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    063 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 42999 October 30, 1936 - ACME FILMS v. THEATERS SUPPLY CORPORATION

    063 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 42334 October 31, 1936 - NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO. v. SERAFIN HIDALGO

    063 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 43596 October 31, 1936 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK

    063 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. 43762 October 31, 1936 - TAN SOO HUAT v. PEDRO ONGWICO

    063 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 44988 October 31, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANUTO BERNAL

    063 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 45198 October 31, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO J. DE JESUS

    063 Phil 760

  • G.R. No. 45230 October 31, 1936 - JOSE ARNEDO, ET AL. v. VICENTE ALDANESE

    063 Phil 768