G.R. No. L-4443. November 29, 1951
CORAZON ROQUE, PETITIONER, VS. BONIFACIO YSIP, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, MELITON CASTILLO, AMANDA ILAC REYES, ILUMINADA S. CASTRO, CAROLINA GATMAITAN VDA.…
PADILLA, J.:
Instance of Bulacan, the petitioner was the defendant and the
respondents, except the judge, were the plaintiffs. Judgment was
rendered therein against the defendant to pay P18,420 and costs. On 2
August 1949, upon petition of the plaintiffs, the respondent judge
issued an alias writ of execution against the defendant for
the sum of P2,920, the unpaid balance of the money judgment. On 26
July, Meliton Castillo, one of the plaintiffs, wrote a letter to the
provincial sheriff informing him that the defendant had a right or
share in a parcel of land, lot No. 3553 of the Malolos Cadastre,
described in original certificate of title No. 8550, “together with the
improvements consisting of a house and a warehouse.” On 10 September,
the sheriff announced the sale at public auction of the right, title,
interest and claim of the judgment debtor in the parcel of land to be
held on 4 October, by publishing it in the Manila Chronicle,
a newspaper of general circulation in the province of Bulacan, and by
posting notices in three public places, to wit: on the municipal
building bulletin board at the entrance of the town market, on the
bulletin board of the post office in Malolos and on the bulletin board
of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. On 4 October, the date set
for the sale, no bidder appeared except the plaintiffs who bid the sum
of P3,060.20, the balance of the money judgment, including notice and
expenses of the sale and the sheriff’s fees, for the right, title,
interest and claim of the judgment debtor in the parcel of land and
improvements thereon. On 29 October, the sheriff executed the
certificate of sale. On 20 January 1950, the plaintiffs filed a
petition praying that the sale be set aside on the ground that it was
made “under a clear mistake of fact.” On 31 January, the respondent
court denied the petition. On 15 March 1950, on motion for
reconsideration filed by the plaintiffs, the respondent court
reconsidered its previous order of 31 January, and set aside the sale
at public auction made by the sheriff on 4 October 1949 on the ground
of clear mistake of fact. On 30 September 1950, the defendant filed a
motion for reconsideration of the order setting aside the sale at
public auction. The plaintiffs filed their opposition thereto. On 27
October, the respondent court denied the motion far reconsideration, on
the ground that it was filed long after the reglementary period had
expired and suggested to the defendant the filing of a petition for
relief under Rule 38. On 14 November, the defendant filed the petition
for relief as suggested by the court, but on IS December, the petition
was denied for having been filed out of time.
To annul the order of 15 March 1950 setting aside the sale at
public auction on the ground of excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse
of discretion this petition was filed.
In their answer the respondents practically admit the allegation of
facts but not the conclusions and interpretation by the petitioner of
the provisions of the rules governing the sales at public auction by
the sheriff pursuant to writs of execution.
It is contended that the respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction
and committed a grave abuse of discretion when it set aside the sale at
public auction made by the sheriff of the province of Bulacan in
accordance with the rules of court on the ground of error committed by
the purchasers who offered a bid for a sum much higher than the value
of the property sold and on the further ground that the notice of sale
did not state that a house and a warehouse were erected upon the parcel
of land to be sold at public auction. The notice of sale stated that
the parcel of land to be sold at public auction was lot No. 3533 of the
cadastral survey of Malolos together with the improvements thereon.
That courts have control of the execution proceedings and may set
aside a sale when a mistake of fact has been committed, to the end that
justice may be administered to the parties, is undeniable. Therefore,
the order of 15 March 1950 complained of, setting aside the. sale made
by the sheriff of Bulacan, was a lawful and valid exercise of the
respondent court’s jurisdiction, did not constitute an excess thereof,
neither did it,,constitute a grave abuse of discretion. More than six
months having elapsed—from 15 March to 14 November 1950—when the
petition for relief from the order of 15 March 1950 was filed, the
denial thereof was in accordance with section 3, Rule 38.
The petition is denied, with costs against the petitioner.
Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo, and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.
Montemayor, J., took no part.