BRAULIO BALAGTAS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. CIRIACA ARGUELLES, DEFENDANT. FERNANDO QUISUMBING, APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Laguna
dated April 21, 1931, denying a motion for reconsideration of Fernando
Quisumbing under date of April 10,1931.

On March 19, 1931, Braulio Balagtas et al., plaintiffs in civil cause No.
5396 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna and appellees herein, filed a
motion in the above-mentioned case, praying that the sheriff be ordered to
execute a deed of redemption .of the properties sold at an execution sale to
Fernando Quisumbing for the amount of P10, which redemption was granted by the
court below on March 27, 1931. It may be noted that the properties in question
were said to be worth P35,000.

On April 10, 1931, Fernando Quisumbing filed a motion for reconsideration of
the above-mentioned order which was denied by the court on April 21,1931. From
this order Fernando Quisumbing appealed to this court.

The three assignments of error presented by Quisumbing are without merit, but
in regard to sales on execution, section 457 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
as follows ;

“SEC. 457. Sale on Execution.-All sales of property under execution must be
made at auction, to the highest bidder, between the hours of nine in the morning
and1 five in the afternoon. After sufficient property has been sold to satisfy
the execution, no more can be sold. Neither the officer holding the execution,
nor his deputy, can become a purchaser, nor be interested directly or indirectly
in any purchase at such sale. When the sale is of personal property capable of
manual delivery, it must be within view of those who attend the sale, and be
sold in such parcels as are likely to bring the highest price; and when the sale
is of real property, consisting of several known lots or parcels, they must be
sold separately; or, when a portion of such real property is claimed by a third
person, and he requires it to be sold separately, such portion must be thus
sold. The judgment debtor, if present at the sale, may direct the order in which
property, real or personal, shall be sold, when such property consists of
several known lots or parcels of articles which can be sold to advantage
separately, and the officer must follow such directions.” (Italics ours.) In the
so-called “aviso” referred to by the deputy sheriff, Quirino P. Tesoro, it
appears as follows:

“AVISO

“En virtud del mandamiento de ejecucion librado en los expedientes de
registro Nos. 190, 439, 440, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 479,
523, 524, 525, 620, 622, 623, 697 y 698 del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de
Laguna, por virtud del cual se ordena el cobro mediante apremio de la suma de
quinientos ochenta y cuatro pesos con veinticuatro centimos (P584.24), mopeda
filipina, como costas del juicio en dichos expedientes contra Paulino Natividad,
Agaton Saul, Martin San Juan, Magdalena Celespara, Virgilio Saul, Florentino
Gonzales, Benigno Maque, Silvestre Lapaz, Emilio Lapaz, Victorio Erasga,
Gregorio Balagtas, Arcadia Ciscon, Rufino Domingo, Valeriano Natividad, Celerino
Deang, Juan Apasionado, Fausto Medina, Celerino Taiiag, Francisco Esguerra y
Juana Garcia, y a favor de Ciriaca Arguelles, por la presente se hace constar, y
se anuncia, que el infrascrito Sheriff Provincial Delegado ha embargado y
procedera a vender en publica subasta y al mejor postor, en la Oficina del
infrascrito Sheriff, en el Edificio Provincial, Santa Cruz, Laguna, el dfa 19 de
enero de 1931, a las ocho de la maiiana, la siguiente propiedad:

” ‘Todos y cualesquiera derechos que dichos ejecutados tienen o pudieran
tener en el asunto civil No. 5396, del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Laguna,
titulado Braulio Balagtas y otros contra Ciriaca Arguelles, y en la sentencia
recaida en dicho asunto.’

“Este aviso se ha fijado en tres sitios publieos del Municipio de Santa Cruz,
Provincia de Laguna, desde esta fecha, y se ha remitido copia del mismo por
correo certificado a dichos ejecutados y al abogado de los mismos en esta misma
fecha. Tambien se ha entregado al Escribano del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de
Laguna un ejemplar de este aviso, para ser unido al expediente del asunto civil
No. 5396 arriba mencionado.

“Santa Cruz, Laguna, a 6 de enero de 1931. ”

(Fdo.) QUIRINO P. TESORO
“Sheriff Provincial Delegado

“Por cuanto, en el dia senalado para la subasta, fu6 el unico y mejor postor
de los bienes subastados Fernando Quisumbing, a quien se adjudico los mismos en
la suma de diez pesos (P10), moneda filipina, que pag6 en el acto.

“Por lo tanto, yo, Quirino P. Tesoro, en mi calidad de Sheriff Provincial
Delegado de Laguna, en virtud de lo expuesto por la presente cedo, vendo y
traspaso en absoluto y a perpetuidad a Fernando Quisumbing, ‘todos y
cualesquiera derechos que dichos ejecutados tienen o pudieran tener en el asunto
civii No. 5396, del Juzgado de Primera . Instancia de Laguna, titulado Braulio
Balagtas y otros contra Ciriaca Arguelles, y en la sentencia recaida en dicho
asunto.’

“En testimonio de lo cual, firmo la presente en Santa Cruz, Laguna, hoy a 19
de enero de 1931. ”

(Fdo.)QUIRINO P. TESORO
“Sheriff Provincial
Delegado“

It is evident that the deputy sheriff has not quite understood the execution
of the case in question. Briefly stated, it is clear that the registered numbers
of the land held by the claimants mentioned in the above “aviso” is real
property. As to any personal property, there seems to be nothing directly
mentioned in the “aviso”. But be that as it may, it is clear that whether there
was any personal property in the statement of “todos y cualesquiera, etc.” in
the “aviso”, the so-called sale of execution attempted by the sheriff is
entirely null and void.

In section 457 supra, it appears that “When the sale is of personal property
capable of manual delivery, it must be within view of those who attend: the
sale, and be sold in such parcels as are likely to bring the highest price; and
when the sale is of real property, consisting of several known lots or parcels,
they must be sold separately.” But the sheriff did not follow that rule; all he
did in that respect was to state that “Todos y cualesquiera derechos que dichos
ejecutados tienen o pudieran tener en el asunto civil No. 5396, del Juzgado de
Primera Instancia de Laguna, titulado Braulio Balagtas y otros contra Ciriaca
Arguelles, y en la sentencia recaida en dicho asunto.” His statement on that
point is also null and void. But the sheriff made still another and serious
mistake. Section 454 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

“SEC. 454. Advertisement of Property to be sold on Execution.-Before the sale
of property on execution, notice thereof must be given, as follows:

“1.* * * * * * *

“2. In case of other personal property, by posting a
similar notice in three public places, in the municipality or city where the
sale is to take place, for not less than five nor more than ten days;

“3. In cases of real property, by posting a similar notice particularly
describing the property, for twenty days in three public places of the
municipality or city where the property is situated, and also where the property
is to be sold, * * *.”

It is well known that if a sheriff sells without the notices prescribed by
section 454 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or the time or place other than that
designated in the notice, such a sale gives no title to the property.
(Campomanes vs. Bartolome and Germann & Co., 38 Phil., 808; Borja vs.
Addison, 44 Phil., 895.)

In the present case the notices were posted January 6, 1931, and the alleged
sale was made the 19th of the same month, with the result that neither the
personal property nor the real property was properly posted, and it follows that
the alleged execution sale in question was also null and void.

No valid sale was made, and the plaintiffs need not present or offer any
redemption of the property in question. The case is dismissed with the costs
against the appellant. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers, and Imperial,
JJ., concur.