SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. 42839           September 12, 1935

JOSE P. BANZON and LUCILA ROSAURO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GEORGE C. SELLNER, Defendant-Appellant.

Briones and Martinez, Isidro Vamenta and Antonio C. Veloso for appellant.
Laurel, Del Rosario and Sabido for appellees.

GODDARD, J.:

This action was instituted by the plaintiffs in the Court of First Instance of Bataan, on April 16, 1932, for the purpose of foreclosing a mortgage, executed by the defendant in their favor on September 1, 1929.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The following facts are undisputed:chanrobles virtual law library

On December 8, 1932, the court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P35,000 with interest at 10 per cent per annum from March 1, 1934, until fully paid plus 5 per cent as attorney's fees, and directing the sheriff to sell the properties mortgaged should defendant fail to pay the amount of the judgment within three months from the date of the judgment. The defendant failed to pay and the court issued an order for the sale of the mortgaged property at the public auction the dispositive part of that order, dated February 26,1934, reads as follows:

Por cuanto las propedades hipotecadas por el demandado George C. Sellner a los demandades Jose P. Bengzon y Lucila Rosauro consisten en doce parcellas de terrano, con sus mejoras existentes en los mismos, y son como sigue: . . ..

On March 28, 1934, the provincial sheriff of Bataan sold the properties described in the aforementioned order. The plaintiff Jose P. Benzon and Lucila Rosauro, were the purchasers.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

About an hour previous to the public auction sale, a third party claim on the actual filed by one B.A. Green, general manager of the Abucay Plantation Company. Notwithstanding the opposition filed by Green in the name of the Abucay Plantation Company, the sale was made including the cane crops on the 12 parcels of land.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On March 28, 1934, counsel for the plaintiffs filed a motion for the confirmation of the sheriff's sale and on March 31, 1934, counsel for the defendant filed an opposition thereto. On the 14th day of May, 1934, the court entered an order confirming the counsel of March 28, 1934.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

A motion for new trial, filed on June 14, 1934, having been denied, counsel for the defendant, on July 11, 1934, filed an exception thereto and notice of intention to appeal.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The appellant George C. Sellner, prays for the reversal of the order of the Court of First Instance of Bataan, of May 14, 1934, confirming the sheriff's sale of March 28, 1934, of the twelve lots of land mortgage of the defendant-appellant to the plaintiffs-appellees without excluding therefrom the cane crop existing thereon at the time of the sale, and also for the reversal of the order of the same court of July 5, 1934, declaring the the aforementioned order of May 14, 1934, final and executory.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The appellant makes the following assignment of error:

I. The lower court erred in confirming the sale of March 28, 1934, on the land under mortgage, without excluding therefrom the cane crop pending thereon at the time of the sale.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

II. The lower court erred in issuing its order of May 14, 1934, final and executory.

The defendant-appellant contends under his first assignment of error that he is not the owner of the sugar crop which was growing on the land sold by the sheriff and that the Abucay Plantation Company was the owner of the crop, therefor it should have been excluded at the lower court before confirming the sale.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In conforming the sheriff's sale the trial court held:

En el caso de autos, la escritura de ventade marzo 28, 1934, no especifica nin describe las siembras de caña dulce en el tereno objecto de dicha escritura, pues emplea solo la frase "Together with its improvement thereon" (consus majoras); y, por consiguente, el Juzgado no puede determinal en este incidente de confirmacion quin tiene derecho preferente sobre dichas siermbras de caña dulce discusion entre los interesados y existentes en el terreno objecdto de dicha escritura.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

En vista delos hechos y consideraciones antes expuestos, el Juzgado confirma de ventura de marzo 28, 1934, sin perjuicio de que los interesados puedan hacer prevalecer su derecho de preferancia mediante accion oportuna sobre las siembras de caña dulce en discusion que no estan expresemente descritas en la mentionadas escritura.

As stated above Sellner claims no interest in the sugar crop in question. He admits that it belongs to the Abucay Plantation Company and consequently it is evident that he is not prejudiced by the order from which he appeals and, therefore, he cannot question validity of the sale of the sugar crop if it was really included in the sale of the parcels of land mortgaged to the plaintiffs. If anyone is injured by the appealed order it is the Abucay Plantation Company, which is not a party to this action. That company protected itself by filing a third party claim with the sheriff who, in turn, required a bond from the plaintiffs before proceeding with the sale. Furthermore the order conforming the sale was made without prejudice to the right of interested persons to institute an action to vindicate their rights.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The appeal is dismissed with cost in both instance against the defendant-appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Imperial, and Butte, JJ., concur.