ZAPANTA, Cedrick S.E. BUSLAW4 AC92 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

. L-29838 March 18, 1983 FERMIN BOBIS and EMILIA GUADALUPE, plaintiffs-appellants vs. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF CAMARINES NORTE and ZOSIMO RIVERA, defendantsappellees. Facts: It appears that Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco were the registered owners of a parcel of land, with an area of 10.7791 hectares. The said parcel of land was cultivated by the spouses Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe. On July 25, 1950, one Alfonso Ortega filed a complaint against Rufina Camino, Pastor Eco, Emilia Guadalupe, and Fermin Bobis with the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte for the recovery of possession of one-half (1/2) of the cleared and planted portion of the land, or the payment of the amount of P1,650.00, the value of the improvements introduced by him on the parcel of land in question. On August 26, 1950, Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco sold the parcel of land to their co-defendants, spouses Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe, and TCT No. T-838 was issued in their names. On January 19, 1951, the parties submitted the compromise agreement to the court; and on January 22, 1951, the court promulgated a decision, approving the said compromise agreement. The defendants Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco, however, only paid the amount of P50.00 to Alfonso Ortega when the obligation became due on February 28, 1951. As a result, a writ of execution was issued on July 18, 1951, commanding the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte that the goods and chattels of the defendants Rufina Camino, Pastor Eco, Emilia Guadalupe, and Fermin Bobis be caused to be made the sum of P140.00. Consequently, the Sheriff levied upon the land which Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco had sold to Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe. Upon learning of the levy on execution, Emilia Guadalupe and Fermin Bobis filed a motion seeking the modification of the writ of execution to exclude them therefrom because under the judgment sought to be executed only the defendants Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco were obligated to pay the plaintiff Alfonso Ortega. But, the trial court denied the motion. Subsequently, on September 3, 1951, the Provincial Sheriff sold the parcel of land in question at an execution sale to Zosimo Rivera, the highest bidder. After the expiration of one year, or on September 17, 1952, when neither Rufina Camino, Pastor Eco, Emilia Guadalupe nor Fermin Bobis exercised the right of redemption, the Provincial Sheriff executed an Officer's Deed of Sale of the land in favor of the said Zosimo Rivera. The Officer's Deed of Sale was submitted to, and approved by, the trial court on March 23, 1953.aw library On March 4,1960, Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe filed the instant action against the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte and Zosimo Rivera with the Court of First

Instance of Camarines Norte, docketed therein as Civil Case No. 1169, for the annulment of the sheriff's deed of sale and for damages, upon the ground that the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 273 was not in conformity with the judgment rendered therein and therefore, void and of no legal effect. Upon the filing of the complaint, the court ordered the release of Emilia Guadalupe who had been confined in jail for about 8 months. Issue: Whether writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 273 was valid and in conformity with the judgment rendered therein Decision: On June 3, 1964, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING judgment is hereby rendered (a) dismissing the complaint with costs against the plaintiffs; (b) declaring the sale executed by Camino and Eco in favor of Emilia Guadalupe rescinded; (c) declaring the sale executed by defendant Provincial Sheriff in favor of Zosimo Rivera valid and legal; (d) declaring said defendant Zosimo Rivera the owner of the land described in the complaint; and (e) ordering Emilia Guadalupe to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of defendant Zosimo Rivera. Since the right of Zosimo Rivera over the land in question is derived from a void execution sale, he acquired no title therein. Besides, Section 35, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that a purchaser of real property at an execution sale "shall be substituted to and acquire all the right, title, interest, and claim of the judgment debtor to the property as of the time of the levy." It follows that if at that time the judgment debtor had no more right to, or interest in, the property because he had already sold it to another, then the purchaser acquires nothing. Such appears to be the case here for it is not disputed that before the execution sale, and even before the levy on execution, or the rendition of the judgment in Civil Case No. 273, the judgment debtors Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco had already deeded the property to Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe and a new certificate of title was issued in the names of the vendees. In dismissing the complaint filed in the instant case, the trial court found that the sale of the land to Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe was tainted with fraud since the said sale was made during the pendency of Civil Case No. 273, and that the price was inadequate.

Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/mar2005/139912.php