G.R. No. 156295. September 23, 2003
FACTS
Respondent Ricardo Galit contracted a loan from petitioner
Marcelo Soriano,
in the total sum of P480,000.00, evidenced by four promissory notes. This loan
was secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land.
After he failed to pay his obligation, Soriano filed
a complaint for sum of money against him with the Regional Trial Court.
Respondents, the Spouses Ricardo and
Rosalina Galit,
failed to file their answer. Hence, upon motion of Marcelo Soriano, the
trial court declared the spouses in default and proceeded to receive evidence
for petitioner Soriano ex parte.
The RTC rendered
judgment in favor of petitioner Soriano, against
the defendant ordering the latter to pay. It became final and executory. Accordingly,
the trial court issued a writ of execution in due course, by virtue of which,
Deputy Sheriff Renato E.
Robles levied on the following real properties of the Galit spouses:
1. A parcel of land
2. STORE/HOUSE CONSTRUCTED made of strong materials
3. BODEGA made of strong materials
At the sale of the above-enumerated
properties at public auction, petitioner was the highest and only bidder. Accordingly, Deputy Sheriff Robles
issued a Certificate of Sale of Execution of Real Property
Respondents filed a
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the inclusion of
the parcel of land covered among the list of real properties in the writ of
possession. Respondents argued that said property was not among those sold on
execution by Deputy Sheriff Renato E.
Robles as reflected in the Certificate of Sale on Execution of Real Property.
Court of Appeals granted the instant
petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Certificate of Sale on execution of real
property is null and void and subsequently the writ of possession.
RULING
Yes. Petitioner dwells
on the general proposition that since the certificate of sale is a public
document, it enjoys the presumption of regularity and all entries therein are
presumed to be done in the performance of regular functions.
There are actually two copies of the Certificate of Sale on
Execution of Real Properties issued namely: (a) copy which is on file with the
deputy sheriff; and (b) copy registered with the Registry of Deeds. The object
of scrutiny, however, is not the copy of the Certificate of Sale on Execution
of Real Properties issued by the deputy sheriff but the copy thereof subsequently registered by petitioner with the
Registry of Deeds which included an entry on the dorsal portion of the first page thereof describing a parcel of
land not found in the Certificate of Sale
of Real Properties on file with the sheriff.
Thus, it has been
held that while a public document like a notarized deed of sale is vested with
the presumption of regularity, this
is not a guarantee of the validity of its
contents. It must be
pointed out in this regard that the issuance of a Certificate of Sale is an end
result of judicial foreclosure where statutory requirements are strictly
adhered to; where even the slightest deviations therefrom will invalidate the proceeding and the sale. Among these requirements is an
explicit enumeration and correct description of what properties are to be sold
stated in the notice.
The argument that
the land on which the buildings levied upon in execution is necessarily
included is, likewise, tenuous.
The foregoing provision of the Civil
Code enumerates land and buildings separately. This can only mean that a building
is, by itself, considered
immovable. Thus, it has been held
that
. . . while
it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the absence of
stipulation of the improvements thereon, buildings, still a building by itself may
be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built. Such mortgage would be still a
real estate mortgage for the
building would still be considered immovable property even if dealt with
separately and apart from the land.
In this case, considering that what was
sold by virtue of the writ of execution issued by the trial court was merely
the storehouse and bodega constructed on the parcel of land,
which by themselves are real properties of respondents spouses, the same should
be regarded as separate and distinct from the conveyance of the lot on which
they stand.
Comments
Post a Comment