Viray v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Pacita Viray and defendant spouses Hilarion and Gliceria Pinlac entered into a compromise agreement where the spouses agreed to pay P160,000.00 in eighty (80) monthly installments of P2,000.00, with failure to pay two installments rendering the outstanding amount due. The agreement was approved by the trial court. The Pinlac spouses' property, mortgaged with SSS, was foreclosed and later redeemed by them, after which they sold it to respondent Johnson Chua. Procedural History: Due to the Pinlac spouses' failure to pay installments, Viray sought a writ of execution for P57,500.00, alleging partial payment. The trial court granted the motion, and a writ of execution for P57,500.00 was issued. The Deputy Sheriff annotated a notice of levy on the property's title. Viray later requested the Clerk of Court to amend the writ to P157,500.00, claiming an error in her initial motion. The Clerk of Court, without a court order, issued an amended writ increasing the amount. Respondent Chua, who had registered the sale and redemption in his favor, tendered P57,500.00, which was rejected. An auction sale proceeded based on the amended writ, with Viray as the highest bidder. Chua filed a complaint for injunction and later amended it to include a declaration of nullity of sale and damages. The trial court declared the amended writ, notice of sale, and certificate of sale void, ruling that the Clerk of Court had no authority to amend the writ without a court order. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, finding Chua to be a buyer in good faith. The Petition: Petitioner maintains that respondent Chua had knowledge of the actual amount to be executed before he registered the deeds of redemption and sale, that Chua was a buyer in bad faith, and that the Clerk of Court had the authority to amend a purely clerical error in the writ of execution. She postulates that respondent Chua is charged with the duty of ascertaining the actual amount to be executed since the notice of levy annotated in the TCT mentions Civil Case No. D-8835 as the source of the obligation of the Pinlac spouses. The fact that Chua did not refer to the records of the case which show that the property was being levied for P157,500.00 is an eloquent manifestation of his bad faith. This, she adds, is not enhanced any by the fact that prior to the registration of the deeds of redemption and sale she had already informed Chua that the balance of the spouses' obligation with her was P157,500.00. Petitioner finally submits that when the discrepancy between the judgment and the writ of execution is merely clerical in nature which can readily be verified, the Clerk of Court may unilaterally correct such error.
Issue(s)
Whether the Clerk of Court has the authority to unilaterally amend a writ of execution. Whether respondent Johnson Chua was a buyer in bad faith. Whether the amended writ of execution, notice of sale, and sheriff's certificate of sale are void due to the unauthorized amendment of the writ of execution.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's ruling is AFFIRMED. The amended writ of execution, notice of sale at public auction, and sheriff's certificate of sale are declared void. The Register of Deeds is ordered to cancel the registration of the notice of levy and sheriff's certificate of sale on respondent Chua's title. FEBTC is ordered to release the consigned amount of P57,500.00 to petitioner Viray.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of the Clerk of Court to amend a writ of execution: The Court reiterated the distinction between the "issuing" of an execution, which is a ministerial act performable by the Clerk of Court under the court's direction, and the "awarding" of an execution, which is a judicial act performed by the judge. In this case, the trial court's order granted a writ of execution for P57,500.00. The Clerk of Court's subsequent amendment of this writ to P157,500.00, without a prior court order amending its original grant, constituted a usurpation of a judicial function. The Clerk of Court's office is essentially ministerial, and any alteration to the substance of a court's order, especially one that increases the amount to be collected, requires a judicial act by the judge. The Clerk of Court should have directed counsel to file a motion for amendment of the order and the writ, which, if granted by the judge, would then allow the Clerk to validly issue an amended writ. On whether respondent Johnson Chua was a buyer in bad faith: The Court found no evidence to support the claim that Chua was a buyer in bad faith. Chua had the right to rely on the amount stated in the notice of levy, which was P57,500.00, as issued by the Clerk of Court pursuant to the trial court's order. He was not mandated to investigate further into the records of the case to ascertain a different amount, especially when the notice of levy itself indicated the specific amount. The Court reiterated the principle that a purchaser is not required to explore beyond what the record indicates on its face. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the appellate court's findings that Chua's delay in taking possession was due to the title being with SSS and his desire to have the title cleared first, and that he registered the sale only after receiving the owner's copy of the title. The claim that the sale was simulated was also dismissed. On whether the amended writ of execution, notice of sale, and sheriff's certificate of sale are void: The amended writ was void because it went beyond the original court order and because the Clerk of Court lacked the authority to issue it unilaterally. Consequently, any subsequent actions based on this void writ, such as the notice of sale and sheriff's certificate of sale, are also rendered void.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court cannot unilaterally amend a writ of execution without a prior court order, as the act of amending a writ of execution, which deviates from the original court order, is a judicial function, not merely ministerial.