Aristorenas v. Molina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants were defendants in Civil Case No. B-2722, where the trial court rendered a judgment ordering them to pay shares for titling expenses, attorney's fees, costs, and to partition the subject property. Complainants did not appeal the judgment, and an appeal by a co-defendant was dismissed. Procedural History: The trial court issued a writ of execution to enforce the money judgment against the complainants, which was returned unsatisfied. Motions to quash the writ were denied. Several alias writs of execution were issued and returned unsatisfied. Pursuant to an order dated August 6, 1993, an alias writ of execution dated September 16, 1993, was issued, leading to the respondent sheriff issuing a Notice of Levy and a Notice of Auction Sale. The Petition: Complainants charged the respondent sheriff with "excess of and grave abuse of authority, usurpation of power, [and] conduct most prejudicial to the best interest of service," alleging that he endeavored to execute a judgment that was not yet final and executory, levied on the entire property instead of the undivided portion pertaining to them, levied on property worth millions to satisfy a P23,600.00 claim, and failed to properly publish the Notice of Auction Sale.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent sheriff acted with excess of authority in executing a judgment that complainants alleged was not yet final and executory. Whether the respondent sheriff committed grave abuse of authority in levying on the entire property instead of the undivided portion pertaining to the complainants. Whether the respondent sheriff acted with excess of authority in levying on property worth millions of pesos to satisfy a P23,600.00 money claim. Whether the respondent sheriff failed to properly publish the Notice of Auction Sale.
Ruling
The complaint is DISMISSED. The Court found no merit in the charges against the respondent sheriff.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of executing a judgment not yet final and executory: The Court held that the finality and executory nature of a judgment is a matter that the trial court is empowered to pass upon. The respondent sheriff's role in the execution of judgments is purely ministerial, and he has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. Any objection against the levy and sale must be addressed to the judgment of the trial court through the proper proceeding, not in an administrative complaint against the sheriff. The remedy sought by the complainants is judicial in nature and not proper in an administrative complaint. On the issue of levying on the entire property: The Court found that the Notice of Levy refuted the complainants' contention, as it stated that the levy was to be made on "all rights, title, shares, interest and participation which the [complainants] . . . have or might have in . . . [the] property . . ." This indicates that the levy was on their respective shares and not the entire property in exclusion of others. On the issue of levying on property worth millions to satisfy a P23,600.00 claim: The Court accepted the respondent sheriff's explanation that the property had an assessed value of only P9,884.27, as shown by the real property tax declaration. This was particularly considered as the complainants did not impute any bad faith, malice, or ill motive on the part of the respondent. The Court reiterated that objections to the value of the levied property should be raised in the proper judicial proceedings. On the issue of failure to properly publish the Notice of Auction Sale: The Court ruled that no publication was required because the property's assessed value was only P9,884.27, which is below the P50,000.00 threshold for publication under Section 18 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended. It was sufficient that the respondent posted a copy of the Notice of Auction Sale for the required number of days in three conspicuous places in the municipality where the property is located and where the sale is to take place.
Main Doctrine
A sheriff's role in the execution of judgments is purely ministerial, and they have no discretion to determine whether to execute a judgment or not. Objections against a levy and sale must be addressed to the judgment of the trial court through the proper proceeding, not in an administrative complaint against the sheriff.