Cruz v. Maria
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A judgment was rendered in Civil Case No. T-98 in favor of plaintiff-creditor Tiu Kian Hem against defendants-respondents. The defendants failed to pay the judgment amount within 90 days. The plaintiff moved for the sale of mortgaged properties at public auction, which was granted. On July 29, 1960, the Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Pangasinan sold two parcels of land and one-half of another parcel to Arcadio C. Judan and petitioners Servillano de la Cruz, Jr. and Crisanto de la Cruz as highest bidders. Procedural History: On August 1, 1960, counsel for the estate of Luis C. Domingo, Sr. objected to the confirmation of the sale due to unconscionably low prices. Petitioners formally moved for confirmation on August 4, 1960. The trial court set a hearing. On August 26, 1960, respondents objected to the confirmation, arguing that the lands belonged to the conjugal partnership of Luis C. Domingo, Sr. and Gertrudes Non, that the bid prices were unconscionably low, and that a parcel exclusively belonging to Luis C. Domingo, Sr. was not sold despite being mortgaged. On October 12, 1960, the trial court issued an order confirming the sale, holding that the lands belonged exclusively to Luis C. Domingo, Sr. or that only half of the conjugal property was mortgaged and the judgment was satisfied. On November 10, 1960, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking to redeem the property. On December 2, 1960, the trial court reconsidered its confirmation order, granting respondents ten days from December 5, 1960, to deposit the redemption price. On December 8, 1960, respondents deposited P41,735.40. On December 9, 1960, petitioners moved for reconsideration, praying that the confirmation order be declared final. On December 15, 1960, the respondent court denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on January 11, 1961, to annul the orders of December 2, 1960, and December 15, 1960, and to reinstate the order of October 12, 1960, confirming the sale.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in setting aside the confirmation of the auction sale and allowing the heirs a period for redemption. Whether the remedy of certiorari is proper in this case.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. The orders of the respondent court do not constitute a grave abuse of discretion, and appeal is the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion because the order of confirmation had not yet become final and executory. An order confirming a public auction sale in a foreclosure suit is an appealable order, meaning it only becomes final after the expiration of the reglementary time for appeal. Under Section 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, a motion for reconsideration filed within that period suspends the running of the time for appeal. Since the heirs filed their motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period after being served notice of the order, the trial court maintained jurisdiction to modify or set aside its previous ruling. By granting the heirs a period to deposit the redemption price, the trial court was acting within its authority to ensure the validity and fairness of the foreclosure proceedings. Therefore, the court was legally permitted to reconsider its October 12, 1960 order while the motion for reconsideration was pending. On Issue 2: The Court held that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari cannot be availed of by the petitioners because an appeal was the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari is a limited remedy reserved for instances where a court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and where no other adequate remedy exists. Since the orders in question were issued while the trial court still had jurisdiction—owing to the suspension of the finality of the confirmation order—the proper recourse for the petitioners would have been to challenge the trial court's decision through a standard appeal. The availability of an appeal precludes the use of certiorari. As the case was still within the jurisdiction of the respondent court when the challenged orders were entered, there was no grave abuse of discretion that would justify the issuance of the writ.
Main Doctrine
An order approving or confirming a public auction sale made by a sheriff pursuant to a decree entered in a foreclosure suit is appealable and does not become final and executory until after the expiration of the reglementary time for appeal. A motion for reconsideration suspends this period. Orders made while the case is within the respondent court's jurisdiction and do not constitute a grave abuse of discretion do not warrant certiorari, as appeal is the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.