Del Rosario v. Yatco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Isabelo de Changco obtained a money judgment against defendant Narciso del Rosario in Civil Case No. 2869. On February 10, 1956, a writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy of del Rosario's property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4853, with a notice of levy inscribed in the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan. Procedural History: On December 28, 1959, del Rosario mortgaged the levied property. On June 14, 1961, del Rosario and his mortgagees filed a Petition to Cancel Notice of Levy, arguing that the five-year period for enforcing the judgment had elapsed without an execution sale, thus requiring an ordinary action to revive the judgment. Plaintiff opposed, asserting the judgment was already enforced by the February 10, 1956 writ of execution and the February 16, 1956 notice of levy. The Petition: The trial court issued an order on July 8, 1961, granting the plaintiff sixty (60) days to satisfy the execution by selling the levied properties, otherwise the levy would be cancelled. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Del Rosario filed a petition for certiorari with injunction, protesting these orders, contending that execution sale could no longer take place after five years from entry of judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed an abuse of discretion in giving the plaintiff sixty (60) days to sell the properties levied upon. Whether a valid execution issued and levy made within the five-year period provided by law can be enforced by a sale thereafter, even if the sale occurs beyond the five-year period from the entry of judgment.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and injunction is dismissed. The preliminary injunctive writ issued is ordered dissolved. Costs are against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abuse of discretion in granting sixty (60) days to sell levied properties: The Court found no abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge. The petitioner's argument hinges on Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which limits the time for issuing a writ of execution to five years from the date of entry or finality. However, this rule does not prescribe a period within which the sheriff's sale must take place after a valid writ of execution has been issued and a levy made pursuant thereto. The essential act is the levy, which sets apart the property for satisfaction of the judgment and places it under the custody of the law. Once this essential act is validly performed within the statutory period, the subsequent sale, even if it occurs beyond the five-year mark from judgment entry, is merely the carrying out of a validly issued writ. On whether a valid execution and levy within five years can be enforced by a sale thereafter: The Court held that a valid execution issued and levy made within the period provided by law may be enforced by a sale thereafter. This principle was established in previous cases, such as Government of the Philippines v. Echaus, et al., and Nestora Rigor Vda. de Quiambao, et al. v. Manila Motor Co., Inc. The levy is the crucial step that removes the property from the defendant's control and places it under legal custody for the satisfaction of the judgment. The defendant's interest thereafter is limited to the application of the proceeds to the judgment, irrespective of the timing of the sale. Therefore, as long as the execution and levy were made within the five-year period, the subsequent sale to enforce the judgment is permissible.
Main Doctrine
A valid execution issued and levy made within the five-year period provided by law may be enforced by a sale thereafter, even if the sale occurs beyond the five-year period from the entry of judgment.