G. R. No. L-17928. April 30, 1963
SERVILLANO DE LA CRUZ, JR., AND CRISANTO DE LA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. ASUNCION D. STA. MARIA AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF LUIS DOMINGO, SR. LUIS DOMINGO, JR., AU…
PADILLA, J.:
annul, and set aside two orders of the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan dated 2 December 1960 (Annex F) and 15 December 1960 (Annex
N) in civil case No. T-98 and reinstate its order dated 12 October 1960
(Annex D) that had confirmed the sale at public auction of two parcels
of land conducted by the Sheriff of Pangasinan on July 20, 1960.
On 29 May 1959 the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (Branch VI)
rendered judgment in civil case No. T-98 entitled: “Tiu Kian Hem vs.
Asuncion D. Sta. Maria et al.” in favor of the plaintiff-creditor Tiu
Kian Hem and against the defendants, respondents herein, directing the
latter to pay the amount of the judgment to the plaintiff within 90
days from receipt of a copy of the judgment. On 13 June 1959 a copy of
the judgment was served on each and all defendants. The defendants
having failed to pay the amount of the judgment, on 5 November 1959 the
plaintiff filed a motion praying that the mortgaged properties be sold
at public auction in the way prescribed by law, which was granted on 14
December 1959. Following the usual publication and notices required by
law, on 20 July 1960 the Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Pangasinan sold
the lands described as parcel 5 (lot 1) and parcel 7 (lot 3) in
original certificate of title No. 25585, and one-half of the parcel of
land described in transfer certificate of title No. 9214, issued by the
Registrar of Deeds in and for the province of Pangasinan, for P1,550,
P37,000 and P1,350 to Arcadio C. Judan and herein petitioners
Servillano de la Cruz y Lichauco, Jr. and Crisanto de la Ortiz y
Lichauco, and to the latter, respectively, as the highest bidders, and
issued on the same day a certificate of sale.
Although Atty. Jose A. Ungson, representing the estate and all the
heirs of the late Luis C. Domingo, Sr., appeared for the first time on
1 August 1960 giving in advance his objection to the confirmation of
the sale on the ground of unconscionably low price (Annex B), it was on
4 August 1960 when the petitioners filed formally a motion praying for
the confirmation of the auction sale. (Annex A). The trial court set
for hearing the motion for confirmation of the sale on 24 August 1960
at 8:00 o’clock in the morning (Annex B-1). In their objection to the
confirmation of the sale dated 26 August 1960, the individual
respondents and heirs of the late Gertrudes Non assailed the legality
of the sale on the ground (1) that said parcels of land do not belong
exclusively to the late Luis C. Domingo, Sr. but to the conjugal
partnership of the latter and his third wife Gertrudes Non who
predeceased him by more than 25 years and had other heirs; (2) that the
prices bid and accepted at the auction sale axe unconscionably low:
P450 per hectare for the first parcel, P1,500 for the second and P275
for the third; the current market value ranging from P4,000 to P5,000
per hectare; and (3) that the sale was anomalous in that parcels of
land belonging to the late spouses were sold, whereas no bids were
asked for another parcel of land belonging exclusively to Luis C.
Domingo, Sr. and mortgaged by him to Tiu Kian Hem (T.C.T. No. 9735),
and that the certificate of sale fully described said parcels of land
but the numbers of the Torrens certificates of title and the names of
the registered owners were not stated. They pray that the auction sale
on 20 July, 1960 be vacated and another public auction sale be held at
the expense of the estate of the late Luis C. Domingo, Sr. (Annex C).
On 12 October 1960 the trial court issued an order confirming the sale,
the dispositive part of which reads, as follows:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the sale done by the Sheriff on
said 20th of July 1960 whereby the parcel of land (parcel 5, lot 1 and
parcel 7, lot 3, covered, by Original Certificate of Title No. 25585,
and the parcel of land (one-half) covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 9214, were duly sold to the movants are hereby approved by
tile Court for all legal purposes (Annex D).
The order reiterated what it had held in its judgment of
29 May 1959 that the parcels of land described in original certificate
of title No. 25585 belonged exclusively to Luis C. Domingo, Sr.,
mortgagor, and half of that described in certificate of title No. 9214,
registered in the names of liuis C. Domingo and Gertrudes Non, which
might be conjugal, one-half of it only was mortgaged to the plaintiff;
that the reason the parcel of land described in transfer certificate of
title No. 9735 containing an area of 76,866 square meters mortgaged by
Luis C. Domingo to the plaintiff in the foreclosure suit was not sold
was because by the sale of the three parcels of land the sum of the
judgment was fully satisfied; and that the interest of both mortgagor
and mortgagee “having been taken care of” and “amply protected” the
sale was in accordance, with law (Annex D).
On 10 November 1960 Consuelo Domingo-Lopez, Pet ronila Domingo and
Nieves Domingo, by their new counsel, filed a motion for
reconsideration praying that the order of confirmation of the sale
dated 12 October 1960 (Annex D), a copy of which counsel alleged to
have received on 8 November 1960 only, be set aside and the movants as
heirs of the mortgagor, the late Luis C. Domingo, Sr., be allowed to
redeem the property sold at public auction before the order of
confirmation should become final and executory (Annex E); On 2 December
1960 the respondent trial court reconsidered its order of confirmation
of 12 October 1960 by granting the heirs and administratrix of the
estate of the late Luis C. Domingo, St. a period -of ten days from 5
December 1960 within which to deposit with the Clerk of Court the
necessary redemption price, deferring determination of claim for
damages, attorney’s fees and other sums to be still litigated by the
parties, and further providing that should they fail to deposit the
redemption price within said period, the confirmation oi the sale by
the Court on 12 October 1960 would be effective immediately without
further recourse and notice (Annex F). On 8 December 1960 the
respondents deposited with the Clerk of Court and Provincial Sheriff Ex-Oficio
of Pangasinan under receipt No. F-4614448 the sum of P41,735.40,
redemption price of the three parcels of land (Annexes 1 and 2). On 9
December 1960 the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration
praying that the order of the court dated 2 December 1960 (Annex F) be
set aside and the order of confirmation dated 12 October 1960 (Annex D)
be declared final and irrevocable on the following grounds: (1) that
the auction sale being valid, the court is not given a discretion to
grant a grace period of ten days to the administratrix or heirs within
which to redeem said properties while the confirmation order subsists;
(2) that the heirs can exercise the right or equity of redemption only
after the confirmation order is dissolved or set.aside; and (3) that
the respondents failed to file any petition under Rule 37; Rules of
Court, or a motion to dissolve said order of confirmation upon proper
grounds such as fraud, collusion, accident, mutual mistake, breach of
trust or misconduct by purchaser as held in the case of National Bank vs.
Gonzales, 45 Phil. 693 (Annex G). The said motion was also adopted by
Arcadio C. Judan a public auction purchaser of one of the parcels of
land (Annex H). On 15 December 1960 the respondent court denied the
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration (Annex G) for lack of merit,
the deposit of redemption price having been made by the administratrix
and heirs of the late Luis C. Domingo on 8 December 1960 (Annex N).
On 16 December 1960 the petitioners De la Cruz moved the court to allow
them harvest the produce in the parcels of land and offered to post a
guaranty bond to answer for damages that the estate and heirs might
suffer (Annex 3). On 4 January 1961 an objection to said motion was
filed by the respondent administratrix alleging that since the
properties were in custodia legis;
that one per centum monthly interest of its purchase price already had
been paid; and that the Torrens titles remained uncancelled, the
petitioners should be held liable for damages for taking possession of
the property (Annex 5). On the same date (4 January 1961) the
respondent administratrix moved the respondent court, to require
petitioners De la Cruz to explain or show cause why they should not be
punished for contempt for taking possession of the parcels of land and
harvesting their produce without the consent of the judicial
administratrix or the court (Annex 5-A). Said motion, together with the
motion to post guaranty bond and the objection thereto and counter
motion was set for hearing on 26 January 1961 (Annex 6). In view,
however, of the filing, of this petition (G. R. No. L-17928) on 11
January 1961 in this Court, the respondent court refrained from hearing
said motions and passing upon the issues raised by the parties in spite
of the objection of the herein respondents and absence of a writ of
preliminary injunction (Order of 26 , January 1961; Annex 7).
On 3 February 1961 the respondents answered the petition with a
counter-petition that it be dismissed with costs against the
petitioners and that the respondent court be ordered to hear the
evidence on the counter-motion (Annex 5) and the motion for contempt
(Annex 5-A). On 20 February 1961 the petitioners filed a motion to
strike out the respondents’ counter-petition from their answer, on the
ground that the subject matter of said counter-petition is foreign to
those raised in the main petition for a writ of certiorari arid should
have been filed separately and that the resolution of this petition
will ultimately decide the ownership of the land involved. On 3 and 25
April 1961 the respondents and petitioners filed their memoranda
respectively and the case was submitted for judgment.
An
order approving or confirming a public auction sale made by a sheriff
pursuant to a decree entered in a foreclosure suit is appealable. In
other words, it does not become final aiid executory until after the
expiration of the reglementary time for appeal from final orders. As a
general rule, a motion for reconsideration suspends such period. The
order approving the public auction sale made by the Deputy Sheriff of
Pangasinan was entered by the respondent court on 12 October 1960. The
main objection by the individual respondents was inadequacy of price.
The ground of the objection to the confirmation of the public auction
sale aa a result of a foreclosure suit goes into the very essence or
assails the validity of such sale. Such being the case, the motion for
reconsideration filed by the heirs of the late Luis C. Domingo, Sr., on
10 November 1960 was well within the reglementary period provided for
by the Rules of Court (Section 1, Rule 37) for taking an appeal and
suspended the running of such period for the perfection of an appeal.
The order entered by the respondent court on 2 December 1960 that
granted the heirs and administratrix of the estate of the late Luis C.
Domingo, Sr., a period of ten days from 5 December 1960: within which
to deposit with the Clerk of Court the necessary redemption price,
which was deposited on 8 December 1960, is tantamount to setting aside
the order of confirmation of the public auction sale entered on 12
October 1960. The order setting aside the order of confirmation of the
isale and the order of 15 December 1960 denying the motion for
reconsideration of the order setting aside the confirmation of the sale
filed by the herein petitioners were all done or entered while the case
was still within the jurisdiction of the respondent court and do not
constitute a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction.[1] Such being the
case, the extraordinary remedy of certiorari cannot be availed of and
does not lie, because an appeal from such order is the plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied, with costs” against the petitioners.
Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Parades, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
[1]Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company (Ltd.) vs. Armando Camps y Camps, 34 Phil. 426