Delos Reyes v. Ramnani
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 11, 1977, a Decision was rendered in Civil Case No. 24858 in favor of respondent Josephine Anne B. Ramnani. A writ of execution was issued, and on June 6, 1978, the subject property was sold at public auction, with respondent as the highest bidder. A certificate of sale was executed in her favor on the same date. A writ of possession was issued on November 17, 1978, and the certificate of sale was annotated on the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 480537 on March 8, 1990. Taxes due on the sale were paid on September 26, 2001. Procedural History: On February 17, 2004, respondent filed a motion for the issuance of an order directing the sheriff to execute the final certificate of sale. Petitioner opposed the motion, arguing it lacked a notice of hearing and that the judgment was already barred by prescription. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion, ruling that prescription did not apply as the judgment was already enforced by the levy and sale, and the issuance of the final certificate of sale was a ministerial duty. The RTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's orders, holding that the motion was non-litigious and not barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to reverse the CA's decision, arguing that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the motion and issuing the orders, and that respondent is barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the fatally defective motion and the subsequent issuance of the Orders dated August 19, 2004 and November 10, 2004. Whether respondent is barred by prescription, laches or estoppel.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The May 13, 2005 Decision and August 3, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87972 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and defective motion: The Court held that the trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The motion for the issuance of a final certificate of sale was correctly considered a non-litigious motion, thus exempt from the three-day notice rule under the Rules of Court. While generally all written motions require a notice of hearing, exceptions exist for non-litigious motions that do not prejudice the adverse party's rights. In this case, the respondent was entitled to the final certificate of sale as a matter of right, and the petitioner could not validly oppose it. Furthermore, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be heard when he filed a Comment/Opposition, negating any claim of denial of due process. On the issue of prescription, laches, or estoppel: The Court ruled that respondent is not barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel. The October 11, 1977 Decision was already executed by the levy and sale of the subject property on June 6, 1978, which occurred within the five-year period for execution by motion. The subsequent annotation of the certificate of sale on March 8, 1990, triggered the one-year redemption period. Petitioner's failure to redeem the property within this period rendered the sale absolute and vested title in the respondent. The issuance of the final certificate of sale thereafter is merely a ministerial act to formalize the already vested title.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a final certificate of sale is a ministerial duty of the sheriff to complete an already enforced judgment, and the failure to promptly issue it due to circumstances like the sheriff's demise does not render the judgment unenforceable, especially when the debtor failed to exercise their right of redemption within the prescribed period.