Pascua v. Heirs of Simeon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A judgment was rendered in Civil Case No. 3606 in 1969, ordering defendants (including petitioners) to pay P19,720.00. The defendants' appeal was dismissed. Real properties belonging to the judgment debtors were levied upon and sold at public auction to satisfy the judgment debt. The respondents were the highest bidders. The judgment debtors failed to redeem the properties within the twelve-month period, leading to the issuance of a Certificate of Absolute Sale on February 20, 1972. Procedural History: On January 21, 1973, the trial court ordered the issuance of a writ of possession. However, the judgment debtors refused to vacate the premises. On May 23, 1973, respondents filed a motion to declare the defendants in contempt. On January 13, 1978, the trial court issued an order finding the defendants liable for contempt for refusing to obey the writ of possession, but tempered justice with compassion, ordering the issuance of an alias writ of possession within fifteen days. The order warned that failure to obey the alias writ would result in commitment to jail. Petitioners sought to enjoin the enforcement of this order, to have the respondents accept the judgment amount instead of possession, and to cancel the annotation of the auction sale. The Petition: Petitioners prayed for an order enjoining respondent judge and the sheriff from enforcing the January 13, 1978 order, for respondents to accept P19,720.00, and for the Register of Deeds to cancel the annotation of the auction sale upon payment of the bid price.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge and the provincial sheriff should be ordered to desist from executing the order of January 13, 1978. Whether the respondents heirs of Segundo Simeon should be ordered to accept the amount of P19,720.00 instead of possession and ownership over the lands. Whether the Register of Deeds of Tarlac should be ordered to cancel the annotation of the auction sale.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the order insofar as it directed the issuance of an alias writ of possession and lifted the temporary restraining order. The court of origin was directed to forthwith issue an alias writ of possession.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of enjoining the execution of the order of January 13, 1978: The Court found that the order had three parts: declaration of contempt, issuance of an alias writ of possession, and a conditional citation for contempt. While the court found petitioners liable for contempt, no penalty was imposed. The Court clarified that refusal or unwillingness to relinquish properties does not constitute contempt if the writ of possession is directed to the sheriff and not to the judgment debtors. The contumacious act under Rule 71, Section 3(b) requires disobedience of a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command. Since the writ of possession was directed to the sheriff, petitioners could not be held guilty of disobedience. The proper procedure for refusal to deliver possession is for the sheriff to dispossess them. However, the Court ruled that the trial judge committed no error in ordering the issuance of an alias writ of possession because petitioners admitted failure to redeem the properties within the twelve-month period, entitling respondents, as purchasers, to possession as a matter of right. The third part of the order, which was a conditional judgment for contempt dependent on future refusal to obey the alias writ, was declared null and void as it was a conditional judgment. On the issue of ordering respondents to accept P19,720.00: The Court held that it was outside its power to order private respondents to accept the judgment debt instead of the possession of the lands they bought at public auction. The Rules of Court clearly state that if no redemption is made within twelve months after the sale, the purchaser is entitled to conveyance and possession. By asking to accept payment, petitioners were effectively asking to set aside the execution sale. The Court reiterated the principle that a judicial sale will not be set aside for inadequacy of price unless the inadequacy is so great as to shock the conscience or there are additional circumstances against its fairness. Granting that the properties' market value increased significantly, the bid price was not so grossly inadequate as to shock the minds of impartial men, especially considering inflation and the fact that petitioners continued to enjoy the properties and their fruits. On the issue of canceling the annotation of the auction sale: This relief was implicitly denied by the Court's affirmation of the alias writ of possession and the lifting of the temporary restraining order. The right to possession of the purchased properties was upheld, which necessarily means the auction sale's validity, as far as the petitioners' right to redeem has expired, remains.
Main Doctrine
A writ of possession is directed to the sheriff, not to the judgment debtors. Refusal to relinquish possession does not constitute contempt if the writ is not directed to them. A conditional judgment citing contempt dependent on a future event is null and void.