Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

FERMIN BOBIS and EMILIA GUADALUPE, plaintiffs-appellants vs.

THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF CAMARINES NORTE and ZOSIMO RIVERA, defendants-appellees. G.R. No. L-29838 March 18, 1983 FACTS: Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco were the registered owners of a parcel of land. The said parcel of land was cultivated by the spouses Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe. Alfonso Ortega filed a complaint the registered owners and the cultivators of the said land with the Court of First Instance of Camarines 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 the value of the improvements introduced by him on the parcel of land in question. The parties executed a compromise agreement. Later, Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco sold the parcel of land to their co-defendants, spouses Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe. Then, the parties submitted the compromise agreement to the court; and the court promulgated a decision, approving the said compromise agreement. The defendants Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco did not comply with the compromise agreement. As a result, a writ of execution was issued and 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, 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, none of the plaintiffs exercise 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. Thereupon, Zosimo Rivera asked for a writ of possession. The Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Norte also filed a motion praying that Emilia Guadalupe be directed to surrender the owner's duplicate of TCT so that the Sheriff's sale could be annotated therein. The court granted both motions and directed the issuance of a writ of possession, and ordered Emilia Guadalupe to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of TCT. Later, 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, for the annulment of the sheriff's deed of sale and for damages, upon the ground that the writ of execution issued was not in conformity with the judgment rendered therein and therefore, void and of no legal effect. The trial court then rendered a decision in favor of private respondent Zosimo Rivera. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the latter court elevated the case to this Court for final determination for the reason that only questions of law are involved in the appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not the writ of execution is valid with respect to the petitioners. HELD: No. Hence, the sale of their property at a subsequent sale at public auction to the defendant Zosimo Rivera is, likewise, void and of no legal effect. 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, 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. Also, the claim that the appellant's cause of action is barred by a prior judgment is not tenable. Apparently, the said claim was referring to the denial of the appellant's motion to modify the writ of execution filed. The denial of the appellant's motion to modify the writ of execution, which for all purposes was a third party claim, does not constitute a bar to another action even if no appeal was taken from the disapproval of the third party claim. A third-party claimant may file a separate reinvindicatory action against the execution creditor or the purchaser of the property at the sale at public auction. He may also file a complaint for damages to be charged against the bond filed by the judgment creditor in favor of the sheriff. Such reinvindicatory action is reserved to the third-party claimant by Section 17, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court despite the disapproval of its claim by the court itself. Appeal is not proper in the case, nor a writ of certiorari or prohibition.