CASE 2020-0042: JESUS G. CRISOLOGO, NANETTE B. CRISOLOGO, JAMES IAN YEUNG, and MARLINA T. SHENG, VS. ALICIA HAO and GREGORIO HAO, (G.R. NO. 216151, DECEMBER 2, 2020, GAERLAN, J.) (BRIEF TITLE: CRISOLOGO ET AL VS HAO ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 17, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 16, in Civil Case No. 33, 581-10, and its Order dated January 9, 2015 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Complaint dated November 18, 2010 filed by the respondents is hereby DISMISSED.

So Ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONERS WON  COLLECTIONS CASE AGAINST A LANDOWNER. THE DECISION BECAME FINAL. PROPERTY WAS LEVIED. BIDDING WAS HELD. PETITIONERS WERE HIGHEST BIDDERS. CERTIFICATES OF SALE WERE ISSUED IN THEIR FAVOR. RESPONDENTS HAVE ALSO COLLECTION CLAIM AGAINST THE PROPERTY. THEY FILED A CASE TO CANCEL THE CERTIFICATES OF SALE BECAUSE PETITIONERS DID NOT PAY IN CASH BUT ONLY APPLIED THE JUDGMENT AMOUNTS DUE THEM IN JUDGMENT. AND ALSO THE CERTIFICATES OF SALE DID NOT MENTION THEIR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS. RTC DECLARED THE CERTIFICATES OF SALE VOID. SUPREME COURT REVERSED RTC.

THE RULE STATES THAT JUDGMENT BIDDER NEED NOT PAY IN CASH EXCEPT IF THERE IS AN EXCESS IN CASE THERE IS NO  THIRD PARTY CLAIM. DOES THIS MEAN THAT IN CASE THERE IS A THIRD PARTY CLAIM SAID CREDITOR MUST PAY IN CASH?

NO BECAUSE THE RULE DOES NOT SAY SO. BASIC IS THE RULE IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION THAT WHERE THE WORDS OF THELAW OR RULE ARE CLEAR, PLAIN, AND FREE FROM AMBIGUITY, IT MUST BE GIVEN ITS LITERALMEANING AND APPLIED WITHOUT ATTEMPTED INTERPRETATION.

THE RULE READS:

Section 21. Judgment obligee as purchaser. – When the purchaser is the judgment obligee, and no third-party claim has been filed, he need not pay the amount of the bid if it does not exceed the amount of his judgment. If it does, he shall pay only the excess.

THE RULE ALSO SAYS THAT IF THERE IS A THIRD PARTY CLAIM THE SAME MUST BE STATED IN THE CERTICATE OF SALE. IN THIS CASE THE THIRD PARTY CLAIM IS NOT STATED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE. IS THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE VOID?

NO BECAUSE THERE IS AN INDEMNITY BOND POSTED. THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE IS TO PROTECT THE THIRD PARTY CLAIMANT. THE INDEMNITY BOND PROVIDES SUCH PROTECTION. BESIDES,  RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE CREATED TO PROMOTE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, AS SUCH,THEIR STRICT AND RIGID APPLICATION MUST ALWAYS BE ESCHEWED WHEN IT WOULD SUBVE1IITS PRIMARY OBJECTIVE.46 THE GENERAL POLICY OF THE LAW IS TO SUSTAIN THE VALIDITY OFEXECUTION SALES. AS THE FINAL STAGE IN LITIGATION, EXECUTION SHOULD NOT BEFRUSTRATED EXCEPT FOR SERIOUS REASONS DEMANDED BY JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THE RULE READS:

Section 26. Certificate of sale where property claimed by third person. – When a property sold by virtue of a writ of execution has been claimed by athird person, the certificate of sale to be issued by the sheriff pursuant tosections 23, 24 and 25 of this Rule shall make express mention of the existence of such third-party claim.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.