Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > January 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17079 January 29, 1962 - BRAULIO CASTILLO, ET AL. v. SIMPLICIA NAGTALON, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17079. January 29, 1962.]

BRAULIO CASTILLO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. SIMPLICIA NAGTALON, ET AL., Defendants. SIMPLICIA NAGTALON, movant-appellee, v. DESIDERIO SEGUNDO, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

Antonio A. Fronda for Respondents-Appellants.

Mariano H. Rabago for movant-appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENT; PORTION OF DECISION SUBJECT TO EXECUTION. — The portion of the decision that becomes the subject of execution is that ordained or decreed in the dispositive part thereof. Thus, where, as in the case at bar, the defendants’ liability was not specifically declared to be solidary in the dispositive portion of the decisions, their liability must be taken to be joint only.

2. EXECUTION SALE; FAILURE TO OBJECT TO IRREGULARITY OF SALE AT OPPORTUNE TIME; EFFECT OF. — Movant-appellee is one of the 12 defendants in the instant case. To satisfy the money judgment rendered against them, ten parcels of land, three of which belonged exclusively to movant appellee, were levied upon and sold at public auction. The said three parcels of land were bidded separately and sold for a total amount of P1,291.00 although movant’s 1/12 share of the obligation was only P317.44. Held: While the sale of the aforesaid three parcels of land to satisfy movant’s share of the obligation might have been improper, yet by not objecting to the sale of her properties at the opportune time, and by offering instead to redeem the same, she impliedly admitted the regularity of the sale and estopped her from impugning later its validity on this ground alone (See Tiaoqui v. Chaves, L-10086 May 20, 1957). Her claim made for the first time when her offer of redemption was opposed, that she had no knowledge of the purchase price for the reason that she was not furnished with a copy of the certificate of sale, and that the same was not registered with the registry of deeds, is of no avail. There is no pretense that the provisions of Sec. 16, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court, regarding notice of the execution sale, were not duly observed. Movant, as judgment debtor could have attended the sale, directed the conduct thereof (Sec. 19, Rule 39, Rules of Court), and even prevented the disposition of her properties insofar as it exceeded the amount due from her individually as one of the judgment debtors. Having failed to do so, she cannot later be heard to complain solely on this ground, against the regularity thereof which becomes binding on her.

3. ID.; FAILURE TO FILE DUPLICATE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE WITH THE REGISTER OF DEEDS; WHEN IRREGULARITY AFFECTS VALIDITY OF THE SALE. — While Section 24, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court, requires that a duplicate of the certificate of sale must be filed by the executing officer in the office of the register of deeds of the province, non-compliance therewith does not necessarily affect the validity of the sale. Execution sales made in accordance with the provisions of Section 19, Rule 39 of said Rules, are considered final and any irregularity committed in the course thereof will not vitiate their validity, unless it appears that injury has been caused thereby. In the instant case, there is no showing that appellee’s alleged lack of knowledge of the exact purchase price of her properties was attributable to the executing officer’s failure to register the sale and, even assuming arguendo, that it is such situation could have been averted had appellee availed of the privilege granted her under said Section 19, of Rule 39.

4. ID.; REDEMPTION OF PROPERTIES SOLD; AMOUNT PAYABLE. — In the redemption of properties sold at an execution sale, the amount payable is no longer the judgment debt but the purchase price. Considering that appellee tendered payment only of the sum of P317.44, whereas the three parcels of land she was seeking to redeem were sold for the total amount of P1,291.00, the amount tendered is insufficient to effectively release the properties. However, as the tender of payment was timely made in good faith, appellee should be given opportunity to complete the redemption purchase of the three parcels, as provided in Section 26, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


On November 11, 1952, a decision was rendered in Civil Case No. 529 of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte (Castillo, Et. Al. v. Nagtalon, Et. Al.) , the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court renders judgment declaring the plaintiffs owners pro-indiviso of the land described in the complaint with the right to possess it and that the defendants are ordered to restore the possession of the eastern portion thereof to the plaintiffs, to pay damages in the amount of P210.00 every year since 1943 until they deliver the possession of said portion to the plaintiffs, and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

On appeal by the defendants, the Court of Appeals affirmed said decision in all respects, with costs against the defendants-appellants therein.

The decision having become final, a writ of execution was issued under date of April 27, 1957, against all the defendants, twelve in number, to satisfy the damages and costs awarded therein which, together with the expenses incidental to such execution, amounted to P3,401.00. Consequently, ten parcels of land, three of which belonged exclusively to herein appellee Simplicia Nagtalon, one of the defendants, were levied upon and sold for P3,401.00 at the execution sale conducted on July 8, 1957. The certificate of sale was issued on the same day to Martiniano Factor, the purchaser, who was a third party not involved in the original case.

On July 8, 1958, the last day of the one-year period for redemption, appellee Simplicia Nagtalon who, as already stated, was one of the judgment debtors and the exclusive owner of three of the ten parcels of land sold in public auction, deposited with the Deputy Provincial Sheriff the sum of P317.44 representing 1/12 of the consideration of the sale plus 1% interest thereon, and prayed for the issuance of the corresponding deed of redemption as to the three parcels of land belonging to her. The purchaser, however, opposed the same on the ground that the amount thus tendered did not cover the full redemption price of the said three parcels of land which were auctioned separately at P1,240.00, P21.00, and P30.00, respectively or a total of P1,291.00 (see parcels 1, 2 and 4 of the certificate of sale executed by the Sheriff, pp. 27-28, Record on Appeal). In view of said opposition, Nagtalon filed a motion with the court to compel the Sheriff to issue the deed of redemption prayed for.

On August 26, 1958, the court, acting on said motion, issued an order holding that the liability of the defendants, as appearing in the dispositive part of the executed decision, was only joint and that the tender of movant Nagtalon of the sum corresponding to 1/12 of the purchase price was sufficient to redeem her properties sold at public auction. Thus, the Deputy Provincial Sheriff was directed to execute and deliver to movant Nagtalon the certificate of redemption covering the three parcels of land owned by her. The purchaser’s and the Sheriff’s motion for reconsideration having been denied, they instituted the instant appeal. 1

The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the lower court committed an error in holding movant’s tender of the sum of P317.44 as valid redemption of the three parcels of land owned by her, and in ordering the issuance of the corresponding certificate of redemption therefor.

It is the contention of the appellee Nagtalon, and upheld by the lower court that her obligation under the judgment is merely "joint", as the dispositive portion of the decision ordered, aside from the restoration of the land involved in the controversy, the payment by the defendants of "damages in the amount of P210.00 every year since 1943 until they deliver the possession of said portion to the plaintiffs, and to pay the costs." Appellants sustain on the other hand, that although defendants’ liability was not specifically declared to be joint and several in the said dispositive part, nevertheless, considering that in the body of the decision the defendants were in effect pronounced guilty of a tortious act, their obligation constituted an exception to the general rule and made their liability therefor solidary. 2

While this might have been a proper argument in a timely motion for modification of the judgment, it loses its efficacy at this stage of the proceedings when the decision has already become final and executory. As held by this Court, the portion of the decision that becomes the subject of execution is that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion thereof. 3 In the absence therein of express declaration to the contrary, the liability of the defendants in this case must be taken — as did the lower court correctly — to be joint only and not solidary.

The directive, however, to execute the deed of redemption of the three parcels of land belonging to the movant, upon payment of her pro-rata share of the obligation, is not in order. It appears from the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale (pp. 27-28, Record on Appeal) that said three parcels of land were bidded and so sold for the sums of P1,240.00, P21.00, and P30.00, respectively, or for a total amount of P1,291.00. Although it may be contended that the sale of these properties to satisfy movant’s 1/12 share of the obligation, which was only P317.44 might have been improper, yet by not objecting to the sale of her properties at the opportune time, and by offering instead to redeem the same, she impliedly admitted the regularity of the Sheriff’s sale and estopped her from impugning later its validity on this ground alone. (See Tiaoqui v. Chaves, L-10086, May 20, 1957.) Her claim made for the first time at this late hour when her offer of redemption is opposed, that she had no knowledge of the purchase price of her parcels of land, for the reason that she was not furnished with a copy of the certificate of sale, and that the same was not registered with the registry of deeds, is of no avail. There is no pretense that the provisions of Section 16, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court, regarding notice of the execution sale, were not duly observed. Appellee, as judgment debtor whose properties were levied upon and made subject to such public sale, could have attended the sale, directed the conduct thereof, 4 and even prevented the disposition of her properties insofar as it exceeded the amount due from her individually as one of the judgment debtors. Having failed to do so, she cannot later be heard to complain solely on this ground, against the regularity thereof 5 which becomes binding on her.

In connection with appellee’s contention that the sale was unregistered, it may be stated that while under Section 24, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court, a duplicate of the certificate of sale must be filed by the executing officer in the office of the register of deeds of the province, noncompliance therewith does not necessarily affect the validity of the sale. Execution sales made in accordance with the provisions of Section 19, Rule 39 of said Rule are considered final and any irregularity committed in the course thereof will not vitiate their validity, unless it appears that injury has been caused thereby. 6 In the instant case, there is no showing that appellee’s alleged lack of knowledge of the exact purchase price of the properties was attributable to the executing officer’s failure to register the sale and, even assuming, arguendo, that it is, such situation could have been averted had appellee availed of the privilege granted her under said Section 19 of Rule 39.

The procedure for the redemption of properties sold at execution sale is prescribed in Section 26, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court. Thereunder, the judgment debtor or redemptioner may redeem the property from the purchaser, within 12 months after the sale, by paying the purchaser the amount of his purchase, with 1% per month interest thereon up to the time of redemption, together with the taxes paid by the purchaser after the purchase, if any. In other words, in the redemption of properties sold at an execution sale, the amount payable is no longer the judgment debt but the purchase price. Considering that appellee tendered payment only of the sum of P317.44, whereas the three parcels of land she was seeking to redeem were sold for the sums of P1,240.00, P21.00 and P30.00, respectively, the aforementioned amount of P317.44 is insufficient to effectively release the properties. However, as the tender of payment was timely made and in good faith, in the interest of justice we incline to give the appellee opportunity to complete the redemption purchase of the three parcels, as provided in Section 26, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from the time this decision becomes final and executory. In this wise, justice is done to the appellee who had been made to pay more than her share in the judgment, without doing an injustice to the purchaser who shall get the corresponding interest of 1% per month on the amount of his purchase up to the time of redemption.

Should appellee fail to complete the redemption price as herein indicated, the sheriff may either release to appellee the two smaller lots and return to her the balance of her deposit, or return the entire deposit without releasing any of the three lots, as the appellee may elect.

As thus modified, the decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. This appeal was originally filed in the court of Appeals, but was certified to this court, on the ground that the issues raised are purely of law.

2. Article 2194, New Civil Code.

3. Oriental Commercial Co., Inc. v. Abeto and Mabanag, 60 Phil. 723, 728; Nery Edwards v. Arce, 52 O.G. 2535; Robles v. Timario, L-13911, April 28, 1960 Segarra v. Maronilla, L-14428, July 26, 1960

4. Section 19, Rule 39, Rules of Court.

5. See Herman v. La Urbana, 59 Phil. 621.

6. Herman v. La Urbana, supra; See also Tria, Et. Al. v. Villareal, Et Al., 69 Phil. 478.




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






January-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19313 January 19, 1962 - DOMINADOR R. AYTONA v. ANDRES V. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17076 January 29, 1962 - AUGUSTO G. GAMBOA v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-17078 January 29, 1962 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. FRANCISCO BUENASEDA

  • G.R. No. L-17079 January 29, 1962 - BRAULIO CASTILLO, ET AL. v. SIMPLICIA NAGTALON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11037 January 30, 1962 - EDGARDO CARIAGA, ET AL. v. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17248 January 29, 1962 - BEATRIZ GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12141 January 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL LASALA

  • G.R. No. L-12487 January 30, 1962 - CASTOR CUSTODIO v. PEDRO T. CRISTOBAL, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14662 January 30, 1962 - GENOVEVA BELTRAN, ET AL. v. CORAZON AYSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14715 January 30, 1962 - MARCELA JULIAN, ET AL. v. MARTA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14913 January 30, 1962 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. ZOILO HILARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15047 January 30, 1962 - IN RE: DIONISIO PALARAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15539 January 30, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO. INC. v. ADOLFO MAGDANGAL

  • G.R. No. L-15964 January 30, 1962 - EZEQUIEL S. CONSULTA v. NICASlO YATCO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15974 January 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL SILVA

  • G.R. No. L-16020 January 30, 1962 - VICENTE FRAGANTE v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE and HOUSING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-16667 January 30, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16693-4-5 January 30, 1962 - GODOFREDO I. MOSUELA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16796 January 30, 1962 - ALEJANDRO ABAO, ET AL. v. J.M. TUASON & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16836 January 30, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. BIENVENIDO SANVICTORES

  • G.R. No. L-16956 January 30, 1962 - SALVACION FERIA VDA. DE POTENCIANO v. WILLIAM GRUENBERG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16959 January 30, 1962 - IN RE: DONATA MONTEMAYOR v. EDUARDO D. GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. L-16970 January 30, 1962 - ELOY B. BELLO v. VALENTIN A. FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-17384 January 30, 1962 - NESTORA RIGOR VDA. DE QUIAMBAO, ET AL. v. MANILA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17398 January 30, 1962 - ARSENIO H. LACSON, ET AL. v. SANTOS VILLAFRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17689 January 30, 1962 - JOSE BELEY v. GENARO TAN TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17936 January 30, 1962 - CITY OF LEGASPI v. MATEO L. ALCASID, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12396 January 31, 1962 - KER & COMPANY, LTD. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12960 January 31, 1962 - CIRILO VENTURA, ET AL. v. ANASTACIA BAYSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12996 January 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ALBERT

  • G.R. No. L-13374 January 31, 1962 - FRANCISCO BAUTISTA v. GERARDO MURILLO

  • G.R. No. L-13439 January 31, 1962 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13656 January 31, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALBERTO D. BENIPAYO

  • G.R. No. L-13924 January 31, 1962 - JACOBO DIVINO v. RAMONA FABIE DE MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14106 January 31, 1962 - EMILIANA EMPAMANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-14834 January 31, 1962 - TOMAS ALVAREZ, ET AL. v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14891 January 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FILADELFO S. ROJAS

  • G.R. No. L-15079 January 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO I. VENTURA

  • G.R. Nos. L-15447-48 January 31, 1962 - ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15976 January 31, 1962 - APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS v. BENJAMIN V. LIMBAGA, ETC.

  • G.R. No. L-16386 January 31, 1962 - RAMON VELEZ v. GABINO SAAVEDRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16460 January 31, 1962 - ADELA SILPAO v. LOPE PAGLOMOTAN

  • G.R. No. L-16474 January 31, 1962 - TOMAS B. TADEO v. PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF PANGASINAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16480 January 31, 1962 - ARTEMIO KATIGBAK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16513 January 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PAZ ARGUELLES VDA. DE LAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16550 January 31, 1962 - ALLEN McCONN v. PAUL HARAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16558 January 31, 1962 - CASIANO MAGISTRADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16629 January 31, 1962 - SOUTHERN LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16661 January 31, 1962 - CLARA DILUANGCO PALANCA, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16662 January 31, 1962 - VET BROS. & CO., INC. v. JOSE S. MOVIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16668 and L-16669 January 31, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ETC. v. BIENVENIDO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-16683 January 31, 1962 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF CEBU v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. Nos. L-16696 and L-16702 January 31, 1962 - LUCIANO ESCOSURA, ET AL. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16714 January 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXENCIO MORADO

  • G.R. No. L-16741 January 31, 1962 - FLORENCIA Q. DE ABRAHAM, ET AL. v. PRISCILLA RECTO- KASTEN

  • G.R. No. L-16809 January 31, 1962 - UNION GARMENT CO., INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16872 January 31, 1962 - THEODORE LEWIN v. DEPORTATION BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-16897 January 31, 1962 - GREGORIO M. MATAS v. HONORIO ROMERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16926 January 31, 1962 - FELIPE TANCHOCO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-17240 January 31, 1962 - CLEMENCIA B. VDA. DE VILLONGCO, ET AL. v. FLORENCIO MORENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17250 January 31, 1962 - JOSE DE LUNA GONZALES, ET AL. v. GENEROSA DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17335 January 31, 1962 - RAUL H. TANPINCO v. ANTONIO T. LOZADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17436 January 31, 1962 - EQUITABLE INSURANCE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INC. v. RURAL INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17451 January 31, 1962 - DOMINADOR S. ASIS v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17533 January 31, 1962 - PHILIPPINE ENGINEER’S SYNDICATE, INC. v. FLORA S. MARTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17564 January 31, 1962 - ARTURO DE SANTOS, ET AL. v. PETRONILO ACOSTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17746 and L-17807 January 31, 1962 - ALEJANDRO FACUNDO v. JAVIER PABALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19260 January 31, 1962 - DELFIN ALBANO v. MANUEL ARRANZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16956 January 30, 1962 - SALVACION FERIA VDA. DE POTENCIANO v. WILLIAM GRUENBERG, ET AL.