HOLLANDA A.S. EVANGELISTA, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE MANUEL ABAD SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. LA PROVEEDORA, INC., THE HON. ANDRES C. AGUILAR, PRESIDING JUD…

This is a petition for certiorari
to annul the writ of execution, and the subsequent proceedings which took place
by virtue thereof, in Civil Case No. 2516 of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch II (Guagua),
entitled “La Proveedora, Inc., vs. Manuel Abad Santos.” None of the respondents filed an answer to the petition.  The petitioner
waived presentation of a memorandum in lieu of oral argument, and the case was
considered submitted for decision on the basis of the petition
and the supporting copies of the record in the lower court.

It appears that in the
aforesaid Civil Case No. 2516 the respondent Court rendered judgment on August
23, 1969, as
follows:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in
favor of the plaintiff, LA PROVEEDORA, INC. and against the defendant, MANUEL
ABAD SANTOS.  The said defendant is
ordered to pay to the plaintiff corporation the sum of P18,000.00,
representing the unpaid difference in the rent of the premises from February,
1957, to January 1965, and an additional amount of P2,000.00 as reasonable
attorney’s fees, with legal interest from the date of this judgment and to pay
the costs.”

On June 2, 1970
Manuel Abad Santos, the judgment debtor died in the
City of Angeles.  Subsequently, or on September 30, 1970, the
respondent Court issued a writ of execution, pursuant to which respondent Pro­vincial Sheriff levied on a parcel of land and on
the house situated thereon, both owned by the deceased Manuel Abad Santos and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 22937-M of the land records of the City of
Angeles.  The auction sale was scheduled
for November 23, 1970.

In the meantime an intestate proceeding for the settlement of the
estate of Manuel Abad Santos was filed in the Court
of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch IV (Angeles
City), docketed as Special
Proceeding No. A-40. 
On November 23, 1970
the petitioner herein, Hollanda A.S. Evangelista, was
appointed special adminis­tratrix of the intestate.

On November 11, 1970, even prior to her appoint­ment, having been
notified of the writ of execution and the scheduled auction sale of the
properties levied upon, the petitioner informed the respondent Provincial Sheriff of the death of the judgment
debtor and demanded that he desist
from proceeding with the sale.  This was
followed by an urgent motion in court that the writ of execution be recalled,
but the motion was denied and the sale was carried out, wherein respondent La Proveedora, Inc. was the highest bidder.

The provisions of the Rules of Court on the matter at hand are
clear.  Section 7 of Rule 39 says:

“SEC. 7.  Execution in case of death
of party.  – Where a party dies
after the entry of the judgment or order, execution thereon may issue, or one
already issued may be enforced in the following cases:

x        x          x

(c)  In case of the death of the judgment debtor
after exe­cution is actually levied upon any of his property, the same may be
sold for the satisfaction thereof, and the officer making the sale shall
account to the corresponding executor or administrator for any surplus in his
hands.”

Note that the property
levied upon in case the judgment debtor dies after the entry of
judgment, as in this case, may be sold for the satisfaction of the judgment in
case death occurs “after execution is actually levied.” On the other
hand, Section 5 of Rule 86 provides that a judgment for money against the
decedent must be filed with the court in the proceeding for the settlement of
the estate.  In other words, the cut-off
date is the date of actual levy of execution. 
If the judgment debtor dies after such levy, the property levied upon
may be sold; if before, the money judgment must be presented as a claim against
the estate, although of course the same need no longer be
proved, the judgment itself being conclusive. 
But the judgment creditor will share the estate with other creditors,
sub­ject only to such preferences as are provided by law.

Since in this case the
death of the deceased Manuel Abad Santos preceded the
levy of execution on his properties, the judgment against him should be
presented as a claim against his estate, and the sale at auction carried out by
the sheriff is null and void.

WHEREFORE, the questioned writ of execution and all
proceedings which took place by virtue thereof, including the sale itself and
its registration, if it has been registered, are ordered set aside and
cancelled.  Costs
against respondent Proveedora, Inc.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Dizon, J., took no part.