Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

027 Phil 141:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 8851. March 16, 1914. ]

AGAPITO BONZON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK and LEONARDO OSORIO, as sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.

Escaler & Salas for Appellant.

Bruce, Lawrence, Ross & Block for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. EXECUTION SALE; RIGHT OF PURCHASE AGAINST EXECUTION CREDITOR. — If the purchaser of real property sold on execution, or his successor in interest, be evicted therefrom, because of a total failure of title, it appearing that the judgment debtor had no right, title, or interest in or to the property sold under execution, he may recover the price paid, with interest, from the judgment creditor.

2. ID.; IRREGULARITY IN PROCEEDINGS. — The sale of property on execution in and to which the judgment debtor has no right, title, or interest, is an ’irregularity in the proceedings concerning the sale; as the term is used in section 470 of the Code of Civil Procedure.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


This is an appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the original complaint filed in this action. The complaint alleges, in substance, that plaintiff purchased certain real estate at an execution sale, paying therefor the sum of P2,170 to the defendant sheriff, who turned over the purchase price to the defendant company, the execution creditor, at whose instance the sale was had; that thereafter, plaintiff having gone into possession of the land was evicted therefrom in judicial proceedings, wherein the court found that the land in question was the property of certain third parties, and that neither the judgment debtor nor the purchaser at the execution sale had any title thereto. The prayer of the complaint is for judgment against the judgment creditor and the sheriff for the amount of the purchase price paid at the execution sale.

The principal contention of counsel for appellee is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The only question presented by plaintiff is the interpretation to be placed upon section 470 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Unless this section gives him the remedy for which he contends, he has stated no cause of action, because the only other theory upon which he could possibly require a reimbursement of the price paid by him at the sheriff’s sale is that of an implied warranty by the judgment creditor and the sheriff. The complaint shows no compliance, as to the Standard Oil Company, with article 1481 of the Civil Code.

"We must admit that section 470 of the Code of Civil Procedure leaves something to be desired in the way of clearness. Its English text, which of course must govern in case of any discrepancy between the English and the Spanish versions, is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 470. If the purchaser of real property sold on execution, or his successor in interest, be evicted therefrom in consequence of irregularities in the proceedings concerning the sale, or of the reversal or discharge of the judgment, he may recover the price paid, with interest , from the judgment creditor. If the purchaser of property at such official sale, or his successor in interest, fail to recover possession in consequence of irregularity in the proceedings concerning the sale, or because the property sold was not subject to execution and sale, the court having jurisdiction thereof shall, after notice and on motion of such party in interest, or his attorney, revive the original judgment in the name of the petitioner, for the amount paid by such purchaser at the sale, with interest thereon from the time of payment at the same rate that the original judgment bore; and the judgment so revived shall have the same force and effect as would an original judgment of the date of the revival and no more.’

"It appears, as appellants says, that this section divides naturally into two parts: (1) Authorizing the recovery of the purchase price under certain conditions, and (2) authorizing the revival of the judgment in behalf of the purchaser in other circumstances. Plaintiff claims to be entitled to the remedy set out in the first part of the section. It is apparent, however, that plaintiff’s eviction, as set up in his complaint, is not due to any of the causes shown in this part of section 470. So far as appears, ’the proceedings concerning the sale’ were perfectly regular, and the complaint discloses no ’reversal or discharge of the judgment’ upon whose execution plaintiff became a purchaser.

"The second part of section 470, applied by the judge of the trial court, seems, at first glance, not exactly applicable, because it provides for the case where the purchaser may ’fail to recover possession,’ while in the present case purchaser entered into possession and was subsequently dispossessed by others. We think, however, that the phrase ’fail to recover possession’ was intended to meet such a case as this: otherwise section 470 would not meet a case like the present, although it was obviously intended to."cralaw virtua1aw library

We agree with counsel for the appellee that the section of the Code in question leaves something to be desired in the way of clearness; and it may be admitted that it is only by liberal construction of the language used in the stature that the sale of property under execution in which the judgment debtor has no title, can be held to be an "irregularity in the proceedings concerning the sale."cralaw virtua1aw library

But we are of the opinion, that the section of the Code of Civil Procedure under consideration, being remedial in its character, should be construed liberally so as to give a remedy as broad as that to be obtained by the corresponding suit in equity, which we think, would extend to a case where the sale of property under execution is held to be void on the ground that the judgment debtor had no title. .

The supreme court of California, discussing the provisions of Section 708 of the California Code of Civil Procedure in the case of Merguire v. O’Donnel (139 Cal., 6), held as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We think a sale made by a sheriff on an order of the court and void execution is "irregular" in the extreme is void for the reason of "irregularity in the proceedings concerning the sale.’ Section 708 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being remedial in its character, should be liberally construed. (Hitchcock v. Caruthers, 100., 100; Cross v. Zane, 47 Cal., 602.) The section under consideration was intended to give a remedy by petition in the action which had culminated in the judgment sought to be revived. There was and is a remedy by an independent suit in equity by which similar relief may he had as is given by the statute (Scherr v. Himmelman, 53 Cal., 312): and this remedy as administered in equity extends to cases where the execution and sale under it are both held to be void (Smith v. Reed, 52 Cal., 345): and, giving the section the liberal construction required, it is clear that the remedy intended to be given under it is as broad as that to be obtained in the corresponding action is equity. It is certainly necessary and consonant with the principles of equity that a party should have relief in cases where the execution and sale are void, as well as in those cases where there is an irregularity of such a character as to render the sale merely voidable. Indeed, it would seem that the requirements of equity were the same in both the supposed cases, and there is no good reason for applying the section to one of them and not to the other."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon like principles we think that where a sheriff, by virtue of the authority conferred upon him by the issuance of an execution to sell the property of the judgment debtor, undertakes to sell and does sell property or an interest in property to which the judgment debtor is in no wise entitled, there is certainly a grave irregularity in the procedure had under the color of the authority conferred by the execution, and it would seem that in the absence of some sufficient reason to the contrary, such an irregularity may fairly be held to be an "irregularity in the proceedings concerning the sale."cralaw virtua1aw library

No sound reason suggests itself for restricting the meaning of the language of the statute so as to exclude therefrom cases such as that under consideration. While the doctrine of caveat emptor, relied upon by counsel for appellee, has its legitimate force and effect in precluding any idea of a warranty by plaintiff or defendant in execution or by the sheriff, it has no application in a case where a purchaser acquires no title to the property sold, as distinguished from a case wherein there is only a partial failure of title; and it has been universally held that in case of failure of title a bona fide purchaser is entitled to recover the purchased price from the officer, if the funds are still in his hands, or from the judgments debtor. True it is that in some jurisdiction in the United States purchasers at execution sales where the debtor had no title to the property sold have no cause of action against the judgment creditors, but in others, "by judicial construction or express statutory enactment," a bona fide purchaser is given a cause of action against the execution creditors as well as the judgment debtor in case of failure of title. See text and cases cited under heading "Rights and remedies on failure of title." (17 Cyc., 1319.) And we think that such was intention of the legislator in enacting the section under consideration.

In this jurisdiction (even in the absence on the stature), under the general principle that one person may not enrich himself at the expense of another, a judgment creditor would not be permitted to retain the purchase price of land sold as the property of the judgment debtor after it has been made to appear that the judgment debtor had no title to the land and that the purchaser had failed to secure title thereto, and we find no difficulty therefore in accepting a liberal construction of the stature which arrives at the same equitable result.

The judgment in favor of the Standard Oil Company, and the execution issued thereon, gave to that company merely the right to have the property of the judgment debtor sold in satisfaction to the judgment. It did not and could not give the company the right to have the judgment satisfied out of the property out of the property of any other person. By the tortious act of the sheriff, certain property was sold to which the judgment debtor had no title whatever; and the proceeding concerning the sale having been found to be void and the purchaser having been evicted from the property, it is clear that the company had no right under its judgment to the proceeds of the sale, and that the sale having been held to have been void, the purchaser at the sale is equitably entitled to the return of the purchase price. This is precisely the result which we hold the remedial provisions of the section under consideration were intended to secure, and it is the result which naturally and properly follows from a liberal construction of its terms.

We think that it will help clear up the uncertainly as to the meaning of the different provisions of the stature if it kept in mind that the remedy provided in cases where "the property sold was not subject to execution and sale" was evidently intended to include cases wherein exempted property of the judgment debtor is sold under execution, and does not refer to cases wherein property of third persons is tortiously seized and sold, the case of Hitchcock v. Caruthers (100 Cal., 100), cited in appellee’s brief, to the contrary notwithstanding. We think that the reasoning on which that decision should have been based is that set forth in the later case of Merguire v. O’Donnel, above cited.

The plaintiff’s right to recovery from the judgment creditor not being predicated on the theory of an express or implied warranty of title, defendant’s contentions based on the provisions of article 1481 of the code need not be considered at this time. If defendant was not given an opportunity to be heard in the eviction proceedings, it would seem that he can avail himself in the pending action of any defense which set up in the former action would have relieved him from liability to reimburse the purchaser.

Let judgment be entered reversing the order of the court below sustaining the demurrer to complaint, and directing that the record be returned to the court below for further proceedings in accordance with law and the principles herein set forth.

Arellano, C.J., Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Moreland, J., concurs in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 7657 March 6, 1914 - AMBROSIO TIEMPO v. VIUDA E HIJOS DE PLACIDO REYES

    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 8699 March 7, 1914 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS

    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 7352 March 15, 1914 - CATALINO HILLARO v. LA CONGREGACION DE SAN VICENTE DE PAUL

    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914

    ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHIBISHOP OF MANILA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 8937 March 21, 1914 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR AND CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING. CO. v. PEDRO N. MOJICA

    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323



  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978


  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 8375 March 30, 1914 - INTERISLAND EXPRESS CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447