NARCISO PERU, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. NICANOR C. SARMIENTO, AND PEDRO CONGZON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEES.

As a consequence of a final
judgment in Civil Case No. 4422 of .the Court of First Instance of Samar, entitled Nicolasa Beato, et al. vs. Narciso Peru,
ordering therein defendants to pay damages to the plaintiffs in the amount of
P1,522.20, a writ of execution was issued, and a parcel of land situated in sitio Parasao, barrio IIo, Santa Margarita, Samar, with
an area of 23 hectares, 47 ares, and 78 centares, declared in the name of Narciso
Peru, was levied upon and sold at public auction conducted on May 7, 1956 by
the Deputy Provincial Sheriff. The property was awarded to Nicanor
C. Sarmiento, the highest bidder, for P1,755.00. In view of the defendant’s failure to redeem the
property within the 1-year period of redemption, the Sheriff executed on May
25, 1957, a deed of conveyance ceding, transferring, and conveying unto vendee Sarmiento all the rights, title and interest of Narciso Peru in said property.

On December 24, 1957, Narciso Peru filed the present case No. 4649 in the Court
of First Instance of Samar for rescission of the deed
of conveyance, on the sole ground that the same property sold in public auction
is the subject of litigation in another Civil Case No. 4506 of the same court,
which was commenced on March 6, 1956, between the same Peru, as plaintiff
therein and other parties as defendants “for the ownership of the same
property.” It is contended that Sarmiento,
purchaser in the public auction knowing the pendency
of such case, acted in bad faith in purchasing the property without the consent
of the parties therein.

Defendants Sarmiento
and the Provincial Sheriff, in their joint answer, set up the defense of lack
of cause of action. Subsequently, the case was submitted for judgment on the
pleadings, with the added stipulation that the entire proceedings in the
original case No. 4422 where the writ of execution was issued, be taken judicial
notice of.

On November 3, 1958, a decision was
rendered dismissing the complaint, the court holding that the pendency of Civil Case No. 4506 did not invalidate the sale
at public auction with respect to plaintiff Narciso
Peru. If at all, it is the defendants in the said pending case that may
properly demand rescission of the deed of conveyance should the land be later
adjudged as belonging to them. Plaintiff Peru brought the case on appeal to the
Court of Appeals, but the same was referred to us, the issue involved therein
being purely of law.

As aforestated,
the deed of conveyance sought to be annulled by herein plaintiff-appellant Narciso Peru was issued by the Provincial
Sheriff to the vendee Nicanor
Sarmiento as a result of the execution sale conducted
for the purpose of satisfying a final judgment against Peru. The writ of execution and the
sale conducted thereunder had never been questioned;
the period of redemption had lapsed, and the corresponding definitive deed of
conveyance in favor of the vendee has been issued. It is this final deed that
is here being assailed fully seven months after its issuance,
plaintiff-appellant claiming that the vendee Sarmiento
acted in bad faith in purchasing the property, knowing that at the time he
offered a bid therefor, the property was the subject
of a case then fending in the same court between the judgment debtor and
another party. Clearly, such knowledge by the vendee of the pendency
of another action over the same property does not give plaintiff-appellant any cause
of action against him. As he claims ownership over the land in the said pending
case, the attachment thereof and its subsequent sale at public auction, to
satisfy a final money judgment against him, is proper. The pendency
of the other case involving ownership of the same parcel of land, as the lower
court declared, will not affect the validity of the execution sale should
Peru’s claim thereon be upheld. He being the owner, its attachment and levy to
satisfy a final judgment against him, is justified. On the other hand, if the
ownership of the property be declared in that pending case in favor of the
defendants therein, it will be they and not herein plaintiff-appellant who
would be the proper party that could question the validity of the conveyance to
Sarmiento. Accordingly, the dismissal of the
complaint is in order.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is
hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Conception, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.