ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 142865. June 19, 2000]
RODRIGO DELA CRUZ, et al. vs. MERCEDES ARCILLAS et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 19 2000.
G.R. No. 142865 (Rodrigo dela Cruz, et al. vs. Mercedes Arcillas et al.)
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, Special Fifth Division, dated April 7, 2000, in CA-G.R. CV No. 450111 Rodrigo, Cecilia, Rufina, Lolita, Aurora, Alfredo, Eufracio, Jr. and Danilo, all surnamed dela Cruz, Plaintiff-Appellants, vs. Heirs of Mercedes Arcillas, represented by Ramon and Elena Arcillas, and the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, Defendants-Appellees. which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 16, in Civil Case No. 260-M-92 which dismissed petitioners' complaint for judicial redemption.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
In the Decision, dated March 18, 1972 of the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch II in Civil Case No. 2674, defendants Francisca Sagalos, Eufracio dela Cruz, Sr., and Feliciana dela Cruz were held liable to pay plaintiffs Jose, Mercedes and Rosa Arcillas or their heirs the sum of P10,200.00 representing the principal of P3,000.00 plus accrued interest of P7,200.00 at the rate of 12% per annum from April, 1972 until the entire amount of P10,200.00 shall have been paid; plus 20% of said amount as attorney's fees.
Since Sagalos and Dela Cruz spouses were unable to pay the aforesaid amount, nine (9) parcels of land belonging to Eufracio, Sr., and his children (petitioners herein) covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 1564, 1565, 1566, 1567, 1568, 1572, 1573, 1576, and 1577 were levied upon by the Provincial sheriff of Bulacan.
On December 22, 1973, the said parcels of land were sold at a public auction to Jose Mercedes and Rosa Arcillas who were the highest bidders. The corresponding certificate of sale was registered in the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on April 12, 1976. Since the judgment debtors failed to exercise their right of redemption within one year from the date of registration of the certificate of sale, the final deed of sale was issued by the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan in favor of the Arcillases on May 10, 1977.
On July 15, 1977, petitioners, children of judgment debtors Eufracio dela Cruz, Sr., and Feliciana dela Cruz, instituted a case for annulment of foreclosure proceedings and damages against respondents in the Court of First instance of Bulacan. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 5147-M. On June 23, 1988, the CFI rendered its Decision:
1. Nullifying the proceedings made and undertaken by the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan on November 12, 1973, only with respect to one half of all the properties subject of execution as per decision in Civil Case No. 2674-M.
2. Nullifying the "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluyan" Exhibit "M" as affecting the properties subject matter of this action, particularly those covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 1564, 1565, 1566, 1567, 1568, 1572, 1573, 1576 and 1577;
3. Ordering the plaintiffs to reconvey to the defendants Heirs of Mercedes Arcillas and Rosa Arcillas the titles to one half of all the properties subject of the sale on execution, most particularly Original Certificates of Title Nos. 0-7691, P-9242, P-9243, P-9242 and P-9245; 2 OCT No. 9242 appears to have been erroneously mentioned twice.
4. Ordering the Registered of Deeds of Bulacan to register the Deed of Reconveyance to be executed by the plaintiffs in favor of defendants Heirs of Jose Arcillas, Heirs of Mercedes Arcillas and Rosa Arcillas;
[5]. No pronouncement as to actual and moral damages, attorney's fees and the cost of the litigation. 3 Rollo, pp. 59-60.
The aforementioned decision of the CFI was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.4 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Fifth Division, dated October 31, 1990, in CA-G.R. CV No. 21546 entitled "Rodrigo, Cecilia, Rufina, Aurora, Alfredo, Eifracio, Jr., and Danilo, all surnamed dela Cruz, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. The provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, Heirs of Jose Arcillas, Heirs of Mercedes Arcillas and Rosa Arcillas, Defendants-Appellees".
Petitioners subsequently instituted an action for judicial redemption in the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 260-M-92 and assigned to Branch XVI of the RTC of Bulacan. The RTC, however, dismissed the case.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case by the RTC, stating in its Decision that petitioners failed to redeem the properties within the period allowed by law, and that the judgment of the lower court in Civil Case No. 5147-M declaring that petitioners are owners of the properties levied by the sheriff only to the extent of one-half thereof had already attained finality.5 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, pp. 34-39.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioners contend that the twelve-month period for redemption had not yet lapsed with they filed the case for judicial redemption since the RTC in Civil Case No. 5147-M had earlier nullified the execution proceedings undertaken by the sheriff and the certificate of sale of all the subject properties issued in favor of the private respondents, since said twelve-month period should be counted not from April 12, 1976, the date of registration of the aforementioned certificate of sale which was later nullified, but from July 21, 1992, the date of the Deed of Reconveyance executed by the Branch Clerk of Court in Favor of private respondents.6 Petition, Id. At 14-19.
They further claim that pronouncement of the RTC in Civil Case No. 5147-M that petitioners are co-owners of the subject properties only to the extent of one-half thereof is not only contrary to law but also unjust.7 Id. at 19-21.
This Court finds no error in the assailed Decision, for as correctly stated by the Court of Appeals therein:
Under Section 30, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules Court which was in force at the time of the subject execution sale, the judgment debtor or his successor-in-interest had twelve (12) months after the sale, which is to be reckoned from the date of registration of the sheriff's certificate of sale, within which to redeem the real property so sold. The appellant concede that the execution sale in the case on hand was conducted on December 23, 1973. The sheriff's certificate of sale was registered on April 12, 1976 (not) April 27, 1992, as claimed by the appellants) and since no redemption was affected, the corresponding final deed of sale was issued on May 10, 1977. The period from April 12, 1976 to April 27, 1992, when the appellants instituted the present action for judicial redemption, spanned sixteen (16) years and fifteen days. It is therefore as clear as a sunny day that the redemption period had long ago expired.
In this regard, it is worth remembering that the period of redemption is not interrupted or extendible unless agreed upon by the parties. Not even an action to annul the sheriff's sale can suspend the period.
The appellants, however, posit the theory that the eight (8) of them and their father Eufracio de la Cruz, Sr., are co-owners in equal shares of the properties involved, so that the execution sale is void insofar as the 8/9 portion belonging to them is concerned, their father, to whom the remaining 1/9 portion pertains, being the only judgment debtor. Accordingly, they contend that the period of redemption did not start to run as there was no valid levy, no valid auction sale and no valid registration of the sheriff's certificate of sale. x x x
Quite obviously, the appellants have lost their bearing. The extent of their co-ownership with their father is a non-issue in the instant case. For that was already settled and put to perpetual rest in the decision rendered in Civil Case No. 5147[-M], which was affirmed by this Court, wherein it was trenchantly and finally determined that the appellants are co-owners to the extent of one-half (1/2) of the subject properties, the remaining half being their father's. In fact, the appellants brought the instant suit for judicial redemption on the basis of that sharing proportion. x x x
They cannot undo what has already been decided in Civil Case No. 5147[-M] as affirmed by this Court without running afoul of the rules on pleadings and judicial admissions and the doctrines of res judicata and the law of the case.
Their claim that the sheriff's certificate of sale was neither signed nor registered in the office of the register of deeds is completely debunked by the evidence on record showing that provincial Sheriff Flor Resurreccion signed the certificate of sale which was registered on April 12, 1976.
Finally, the appellants' parting shot that the decision in Civil Case No. 5147[-M] is incapable of execution because, as declared by the (trial) court itself, it is vague and indefinite because it does not delineate or specify which one-half of the properties must go to the appellants and the appellees, is not appropriate since the present appeal is not from Civil Case No. 5147[-M] but rather from Civil Case No. 260-M-92. Besides, the appellees have shown that the aforementioned decision has already been executed with the Branch Clerk of Court executing the deed of conveyance in favor of the Heirs of Jose Arcillas, et al. 8 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Id, at 34-39.
The Court notes further that the nullification of the execution proceedings and the certificate issued in favor of private respondents in Civil Case No. 5147-M was partial. i.e., only with respect to the extent of one-half of all the properties subject of execution corresponding to the portion co-owned by them. However the execution proceedings corresponding to the one-half co-owned by Eufracio, Sr., remained valid. Hence, the twelve-month redemption period should still be reckoned from April 12, 1976, the date of registration of the certificate of sale issued in favor of private respondents. Clearly, petitioners' time to redeem the properties sold to private respondents had already lapsed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
