Soriano v. Spouses Galit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Ricardo Galit obtained a loan from petitioner Marcelo Soriano, evidenced by four promissory notes totaling P480,000.00, secured by a real estate mortgage. Upon Galit's failure to pay, Soriano filed a complaint for sum of money. The respondents failed to file an answer, leading to their default and an ex parte reception of evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered judgment in favor of Soriano, ordering the payment of P350,000.00 plus interest, P20,000.00 for attorney's fees, and costs. This judgment became final and executory. Procedural History: A writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy and public auction of several real properties belonging to the respondents. Petitioner Soriano was the highest and only bidder. A Certificate of Sale on Execution of Real Property was issued, which was subsequently registered by the petitioner. Ten months after registration, the petitioner moved for a writ of possession, asserting that the redemption period had expired. The RTC granted the motion and issued a writ of possession. However, the respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the inclusion of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-40785 in the writ of possession, arguing it was not among the properties sold on execution as reflected in the Sheriff's Certificate of Sale. The Petition: The Court of Appeals granted the respondents' petition, declaring the writ of possession null and void. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner argues that the CA erred in entertaining the certiorari petition, as the respondents had other available remedies such as a motion for reconsideration, motion to quash, or appeal, which they failed to pursue. Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the CA erred in declaring the Certificate of Sale on Execution of Real Property void, asserting it is a public document enjoying a presumption of regularity, and that the inclusion of the disputed land was justified as the buildings sold were situated on it. The petitioner maintains that the CA's decision was based on a mere suspicion rather than concrete evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in entertaining a petition for certiorari despite the availability of other remedies. Whether the writ of possession, which included a parcel of land not expressly enumerated in the Certificate of Sale on Execution of Real Property, is void. Whether the land on which the storehouse and bodega were constructed is necessarily included in the sale of the said improvements.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 13, 2002, of the Court of Appeals, which declared the writ of possession issued by the Regional Trial Court null and void, is affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the availability of certiorari: The Court held that while certiorari may not generally be a substitute for an appeal, this rule should not be strictly enforced if the petition is genuinely meritorious and the rigid application of rules would frustrate substantial justice or bar the vindication of a legitimate grievance. The Rules of Court are to be liberally construed to promote the objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. Departures from procedure may be forgiven where they do not impair the substantial rights of the parties. Technicalities should not stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties, especially when a party is remiss in attending to their interests. On the validity of the writ of possession including property not in the Certificate of Sale: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the writ of possession was void. It noted that there were two copies of the Certificate of Sale: one on file with the deputy sheriff and another registered with the Registry of Deeds. The registered copy contained an entry on its dorsal portion describing a parcel of land covered by OCT No. T-40785, which was not present in the sheriff's copy. The Court found no reason offered for this discrepancy and considered the surreptitious inclusion and furtive intercalation of this entry to cast serious doubt on the authenticity of petitioner's copy of the Certificate of Sale. The Court emphasized that the issuance of a Certificate of Sale requires strict adherence to statutory requirements, and any deviation can invalidate the proceeding and the sale. An incorrect or belatedly inserted description of properties can be a substantial and fatal error. On whether the land is necessarily included: The Court found the argument that the land on which the storehouse and bodega were constructed is necessarily included to be tenuous. Citing Article 415 of the Civil Code, the Court pointed out that land and buildings are enumerated separately as immovable property. This implies that a building, by itself, is considered immovable and can be mortgaged or sold apart from the land on which it is built. Therefore, the sale of the storehouse and bodega, which are real properties in themselves, should be regarded as separate and distinct from the conveyance of the lot on which they stand, especially since they were not explicitly mentioned in the Certificate of Sale.
Main Doctrine
A writ of possession that includes real property not expressly enumerated in the Certificate of Sale on Execution of Real Property is void, especially when the inclusion appears to be a surreptitious intercalation without satisfactory explanation, casting doubt on its authenticity and the regularity of the proceedings.