Romulo v. Dasalla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In Civil Case No. 564, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision and declared the plaintiffs-appellants entitled to recover possession of the property with costs. Subsequently, Esteban Dasalla petitioned for the execution of the judgment, attaching a bill of costs amounting to P387.50 and requesting that the three defendants be ordered to pay jointly and severally. The lower court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. Procedural History: Pursuant to the writ of execution, the provincial sheriff attached two parcels of land owned by Glicerio Romulo to satisfy the P387.50 in costs. These parcels were sold at public auction to Esteban Dasalla for P592.50, covering costs, publication expenses, and sheriff's fees. The sale was annotated on the title. Later, Romulo sold three parcels of land covered by the same title to Roque V. Desquitado. After the redemption period expired, the sheriff executed an absolute deed of sale in favor of Dasalla, and a writ of possession was issued. Romulo filed motions for reconsideration, and Desquitado moved to intervene, all of which were denied. Romulo and Desquitado appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Petition: Glicerio Romulo and Roque V. Desquitado filed the present action (Civil Case No. 2014) seeking to declare the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 564, the attachment and sale of the land, and the absolute deed of sale null and void. The lower court declared the writ of execution, levy, auction sale, and absolute deed of sale null and void.
Issue(s)
Whether the costs in Civil Case No. 564 had been properly taxed. Whether the writ of execution, the auction sale, and the absolute sale are null and void. Whether the appellees still have the right to question the validity of said execution after the certificate of absolute sale had been executed in favor of appellant Dasalla. Whether the matter in litigation in Civil Case No. 564 is the same as the matter brought up in the present case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, declaring the writ of execution, levy on execution, public auction sale, and the absolute deed of sale null and void. The Court held that the procedure for taxing costs was not strictly complied with, and the writ of execution varied the terms of the judgment regarding the liability of the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the costs were properly taxed: The Court held that the procedure outlined in Section 8, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court for the taxation of costs was not strictly complied with. The bill of costs was merely attached to the petition for execution, and the clerk of court issued the writ of execution without costs having first been taxed. This failure to follow the prescribed procedure renders the writ of execution, and consequently the sale at public auction and the absolute sale, null and void. The Court emphasized that even if a decision grants costs, the payment thereof requires specific steps, including assessment by the clerk of court and potential appeal from that assessment, which were absent in this case. On whether the writ of execution, auction sale, and absolute sale are null and void: The Court found the writ of execution to be null and void for two main reasons. Firstly, as stated above, costs were not properly taxed. Secondly, the appellate court's decision stated that the plaintiffs-appellants were entitled to recover possession "with costs," implying a joint liability for the costs. However, the writ of execution ordered the sheriff to collect the sum of P387.50 from the three defendants "jointly and severally." The Court reiterated the established rule that where a judgment does not state that defendants are liable jointly and severally, none may be compelled to satisfy the full judgment. The execution order must conform substantially with the decision and cannot vary its terms, otherwise, it is invalid and violates due process. On whether appellees have the right to question the validity of the execution after the certificate of absolute sale: The Court ruled that the appellees still had the right to question the validity of the execution. The principle of estoppel does not apply because the action was filed only a month after the execution of the deed of sale. Since the absolute sale was found to be null and void, Romulo's right to annul it was not barred by his failure to redeem the properties within the redemption period. A null and void sale obviates the need for redemption, citing Balagtas vs. Arguellas. On whether the matter in litigation is the same as in Civil Case No. 564: The Court determined that the matter litigated in the present case (Civil Case No. 2014) was not the same as that in Civil Case No. 564. While Civil Case No. 564 decided Dasalla's entitlement to costs, the present case assailed the amount of costs, the nature of the liability therefor, and the manner in which the right to costs was exercised. Therefore, the plea of res judicata was not applicable.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution for costs is null and void if costs were not properly taxed by the clerk of court in accordance with Section 8, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, a writ of execution that makes defendants solidarily liable for costs when the judgment only provides for joint liability is also null and void, as it varies the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce.