DANILO I. SUAREZ, EUFROCINA SUAREZ-ANDRES, MARCELO I. SUAREZ, JR., EVELYN SUAREZ-DE LEON AND REGINIO I. SUAREZ, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, VALENTE RAYMUNDO, VIOLETA …

The ultimate issue before Us is whether or not private
respondents can validly acquire all the five (5) parcels of land co-owned by
petitioners and registered in the name of petitioner’s deceased father, Marcelo
Suarez, whose estate has not been partitioned or liquidated, after the said
properties were levied and publicly sold en masse to private respondents to
satisfy the personal judgment debt of Teofista Suarez, the surviving spouse of
Marcelo Suarez, mother of herein petitioners.

The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:

Herein petitioners are brothers and sisters. Their father died in 1955 and since then his
estate consisting of several valuable parcels of land in Pasig, Metro Manila
has not been liquidated or partitioned. In 1977, petitioners’ widowed mother and Rizal Realty Corporation lost
in the consolidated cases for rescission of contract and for damages, and were
ordered by Branch 1 of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal (now Branch
151, RTC of Pasig) to pay, jointly and severally, herein respondents the
aggregate principal amount of about P70,000 as damages.^[1]

The judgment against petitioner’s mother and Rizal Realty
Corporation having become final and executory, five (5) valuable parcels of
land in Pasig, Metro Manila, (worth to be millions then) were levied and sold
on execution on June 24, 1983 in favor of the private respondents as the
highest bidder for the amount of P94,170.00. Private respondents were then issued a certificate of sale which was
subsequently registered on August 1, 1983.

On June 21, 1984, before the expiration of the redemption period,
petitioners filed a reinvindicatory action^[2]
against private respondents and the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, thereafter
docketed as Civil Case No. 51203, for the annulment of the auction sale and the
recovery of the ownership of the levied pieces of property. Therein, they alleged, among others, that
being strangers to the case decided against their mother, they cannot be held
liable therefor and that the five (5) parcels of land, of which they are
co-owners, can neither be levied nor sold on execution.

On July 31, 1984, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal issued to
private respondents a final deed of sale^[3] over
the properties.

On October 22, 1984, Teofista Suarez joined by herein petitioners
filed with Branch 151 a Motion for Reconsideration^[4] of
the Order dated October 10, 1984, claiming that the parcels of land are
co-owned by them and further informing the Court the filing and pendency of an
action to annul the auction sale (Civil Case No. 51203), which motion however,
was denied.

On February 25, 1985, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued
enjoining private respondents from transferring to third parties the levied
parcels of land based on the finding that the auctioned lands are co-owned by
petitioners.

On March 1, 1985, private respondent Valente Raymundo filed in
Civil Case No. 51203 a Motion to Dismiss for failure on the part of the
petitioners to prosecute, however, such motion was later denied by Branch 155,
Regional Trial Court, Pasig.

On December 1985, Raymundo filed in Civil Case No. 51203 an
Ex-Parte Motion to Dismiss complaint for failure to prosecute. This was granted by Branch 155 through an
Order dated May 29, 1986, notwithstanding petitioner’s pending motion for the
issuance of alias summons to be served upon the other defendants in the said
case. A motion for reconsideration was
filed but was later denied.

On October 10, 1984, RTC Branch 151 issued in Civil Case Nos.
21736-21739 an Order directing Teofista Suarez and all persons claiming right
under her to vacate the lots subject of the judicial sale; to desist from
removing or alienating improvements thereon; and to surrender to private
respondents the owner’s duplicate copy of the torrens title and other pertinent
documents.

Teofista Suarez then filed with the then Court of Appeals a
petition for certiorari to annul the Orders of Branch 151 dated October
10, 1984 and October 14, 1986 issued in Civil Case Nos. 21736-21739.

On December 4, 1986, petitioners filed with Branch 155 a Motion
for reconsideration of the Order^[5] dated
September 24, 1986. In an Order dated
June 10, 1987,^[6]
Branch 155 lifted its previous order of dismissal and directed the issuance of
alias summons.

Respondents then appealed to the Court of Appeals seeking to
annul the orders dated February 25, 1985,^[7] May
19, 1989^[8]
and February 26, 1990^[9]
issued in Civil Case No. 51203 and further ordering respondent judge to dismiss
Civil Case. No. 51203. The appellate
court rendered its decision on July 27, 1990,^[10] the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby granted
and the questioned orders dated February 25, 1985, May 19, 1989 and February
26, 1990 issued in Civil Case No. 51203 are hereby annulled; further respondent
judge is ordered to dismiss Civil Case No. 51203.”^[11]

Hence, this appeal.

Even without touching on the incidents and issues raised by both
petitioner and private respondents and the developments subsequent to the
filing of the complaint. We cannot but
notice the glaring error committed by the trial court.

It would be useless to discuss the procedural issue on the
validity of the execution and the manner of publicly selling en masse subject
properties for auction. To start with,
only one-half of the 5 parcels of land should have been the subject of the
auction sale.

The law in point is Article 777 of the Civil Code, the law
applicable at the time of the institution of the case:

“The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of
the death of the decedent.”

Article 888 further provides:

“The legitime of the legitimate children and descendants consists
of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother.

The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half, subject to the
rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter
provided.”

Article 892 par. 2 likewise provides:

“If there are two or more legitimate children or descendants, the surviving
spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate
children or descendants.”

Thus, from the foregoing, the legitime of the surviving spouse is
equal to the legitime of each child.

The proprietary interest of petitioners in the levied and
auctioned property is different from and adverse to that of their mother. Petitioners became co-owners of the property
not because of their mother but through their own right as children of their
deceased father. Therefore, petitioners
are not barred in any way from instituting the action to annul the auction sale
to protect their own interest.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July
27, 1990 as well as its Resolution of August 28, 1990 are hereby REVERSED and
set aside; and Civil Case No. 51203 is reinstated only to determine that
portion which belongs to petitioners and to annul the sale with regard to said
portion.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melo, J., no part.

^[1]
Records, pp. 19-24.

^[2]
Records, pp. 38-41.

^[3]
Records, p. 25.

^[4]
Records, pp. 27-29.

^[5]
Records, p. 46.

^[6]
Records, p. 104.

^[7]
Records, p. 42.

^[8]
Records, pp. 47-50.

^[9]
Records, p. 76.

^[10]
Records, pp. 177-180.

^[11]
Rollo, p. 18.