Guiang v. Co
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a civil action where the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered Aurora Guiang (petitioner) to pay Eva T. Co (respondent) the principal amount of P64,870.00, plus interest. This judgment became final and executory. Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy and public auction of thirty parcels of land owned by the petitioner. The respondent purchased these properties for P308,701.00, and a Sheriff's Certificate of Sale was issued in her favor. Procedural History: The petitioner filed a complaint for redemption, consignation of payment, and damages, alleging that the amount due was P112,574.00 and that her offers to pay were rejected. The RTC dismissed this complaint. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but her appeal was dismissed due to her failure to file an appellant's brief. Her subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition with the CA for the annulment of the writ of execution, arguing that the deputy sheriff violated rules regarding the levy and sale of properties by selling all thirty parcels for a sum exceeding the judgment debt and by selling them all at once instead of separately. The CA dismissed this petition, stating that the proper remedy was an appeal, and denied her motion for reconsideration, holding that her failure to avail of remedies was her fault. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in not considering her petition for annulment of the writ of execution under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court as a proper remedy. She contends that the CA should have recognized that the writ of execution and its implementation were void due to violations of Sections 15 and 21 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, specifically the excessive levy and sale of properties and the failure to sell them separately. The petitioner asserts that the CA erred in dismissing her petition and that the writ of execution, as implemented, was a final order that could be annulled under Rule 47, citing the case of Buan v. Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of the writ of execution, considering the nature of the petition and the proper remedies for irregularities in execution. Whether a petition for annulment of a writ of execution under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy for alleged violations in the levy and sale of properties during execution, and whether the petitioner pursued the correct procedural steps. Whether the levy and sale of petitioner's thirty parcels of land in bulk violated Sections 15 and 21 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, warranting an investigation into the conduct of the execution sale.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied due course to the petition and dismissed it. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for annulment of the writ of execution. The Office of the Court Administrator was directed to investigate the alleged irregularities in the execution sale conducted by Deputy Sheriff David R. Medina.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that the petition filed with the Court of Appeals, though captioned as a "Petition for Annulment of Writ of Execution," was in reality a petition for the nullification of the deputy sheriff's levy and sale of the thirty parcels of land. The Court clarified that the caption is not determinative of the nature of the petition, but rather the material allegations therein. The Court emphasized that Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies only to a petition to annul a judgment or final order and resolution in civil actions on the ground of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction or due process. A writ of execution is not a final order or resolution; it is a judicial process to enforce a final order or judgment. Therefore, Rule 47 was not the proper remedy for annulling the levy and sale of properties or the writ of execution itself. The Court reiterated the ruling in Deltaventures Resources, Inc. v. Cabato that whatever irregularities attended the issuance and execution of a writ of execution should be referred to the same administrative tribunal which rendered the decision. This is because any court which issued a writ of execution has the inherent power to correct errors of its ministerial officers and to control its own processes. On the proper remedy and procedural compliance: The proper remedy for the petitioner to nullify the levy and sale of the properties for alleged violations of Sections 15 and 21, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was a motion for that purpose before the trial court. Thereafter, if the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion, the remedy would be a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner's institution of a separate complaint for redemption in Civil Case No. 2096 was considered an admission that the levy and sale were in accordance with the Rules of Court. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to file any motion with the trial court to annul the levy and sale of her properties after the sheriff sold them at public auction. Instead, she filed a new complaint for redemption and consignation. The Court found that the petitioner filed her petition with the Court of Appeals under Rule 47 as an afterthought after her appeal was dismissed due to her own negligence. On the alleged violations of Rule 39 and the need for investigation: The Court acknowledged the need to investigate the allegations of the petitioner that Deputy Sheriff R. Medina violated Section 21, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court in the conduct of the execution sale, and thus directed the Office of the Court Administrator to conduct an appropriate investigation.
Main Doctrine
A petition for annulment of a writ of execution under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court does not apply to an action to annul the levy and sale at public auction of properties or the certificate of sale executed by the deputy sheriff, nor does it apply to an action to nullify a writ of execution because a writ of execution is not a final order or resolution but a judicial process to enforce a final order or judgment. The proper remedy for irregularities in the execution of a writ is a motion before the trial court that issued the writ, followed by a petition for certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion.