You are on page 1of 2

Rule 39, Sec 15 office w/ his clerk or w/ a person having charge

thereof. If no person is found in his office or if his


Sps. Tagle v CA (July 9,2009) office is not known, it may be made at the partys
or counsels residence w/ a person of sufficient
This case stemmed from a civil case for age & discretion residing therein.
rescission of contract filed by Sps Carandang So following Sec6, the written notice of
against Sps Tagle. sale to the JD need not be personally served on
The court (CA) ruled in favor of Sps the JD himself.
Carandang thereby ordering Sps Tagle to pay the Moreover, other circumstances on
amount of 445,115.04 w/ interest. record would also show that the JD were duly
When the judgment became final and notified of the Aug 9 auction sale. According to
executory (Dec 9,98) and upon motion of the the sheriffs report (Aug 11), the notice of sale
Carandangs, the RTC ordered the issuance of a was first issued on March 20 but this was
writ of execution. postponed by the parties for time to come up
In the process, certain personal with an Amicable settlement. When no AS was
properties of the Tagles consisting of various reached, the Auction sale eventually proceeded
paintings & artworks of Ernesto Tagle, were sold and the son of Tagle, was present.
at public auction on Aug 9, 2000, for 62K. As for the 2nd auction sale, the written
It was followed by another auction on notice was served and signed by Ernesto Tagle
September 27,2000, again consisting of various himself, so the SC said that he could credibly
paintings and artworks for 189,500. feign ignorance of these auction sales.
Subsequently, the Tagles filed a motion
to annul the public auctions arguing that *It was also emphasized that the sheriff enjoys
a. there was a lack of written notice to the presumption of regularity in the
them in violation of Sec 15, Rule 39. performance of his functions. The presumption
b. Shockingly inadequate proceeds of prevails in the absence of substantial evidence to
the sale. the contrary and cannot be overcome by bare
This was denied by the RTC. Hence, this and self-serving allegations. In this case, there
present petition. was no showing that there was any irregularity
in the report submitted by thee Sheriff.
Issue: WON there was violation of the written
notice under Sec 15 of rule 39. *as to the contention of the Tagles that the
proceeds of the sale was inadequate, the SC
Held: NO ruled that it was incumbent upon them to
As to the first public auction, the Tagles produce independent, competent and credible
argue that the written notice of sale that was valuations or appraisals of the artwork sold in
served on their private secretary is in violation of order to substantiate their claim. But they failed
Sec 15, rule 39 which purportedly requires that to do so.
the notice of sale be given to the JD & no other
person.
However, Par(d) of Sec 15 states that
written notice of the sale shall be given to the JD,
in the same manner as personal service of
pleadings and other papers, as provided by Sec 6
of Rule 13.
Under Sec 6, rule 13, service of papers
may be made by delivering personally a copy to
the party or his counsel, or by leaving it in his
Rule 39, Section 16 the property not belonging to the JD, or an
independent action to vindicate his claim of
Villasi vs Garcia (January 15, 2014) ownership over the foreclosed property.
The right of a 3rd party claimant to file a
This case stemmed from a collection of terceria is founded on his title or right of
sum of money filed by FGCI (Fil-Garcia possession. But before the court can exercise it s
Construction, Inc) against Magdalena Villasi. supervisory power to direct the release of the
RTC- ruled in favor of FGCI property mistakenly levied and the restoration
CA-reversed. Ruled that an overpayment theeof to its rightful owner, the claimant must
was made by Villasi thereby directing FGCI to first established his ownership or right of
return the amount that was paid in excess. possession over the property.
1,244,543.33 overpayment However, records would show that the
425,004.00 unpaid construction materials Sps Garcia failed to prove that they have a
The said resolution became final and bonafide title to the building in question. Sps
executory on Nov 27, 2001 and entry of Garcia were unable to adduce credible evidence
judgment was made. to prove their ownership of the property. In
Thereafter, Villasi filed a motion for contrast, Villasi was able to satisfactorily
execution and a writ of execution was issued on establish the ownership of FGCI thru the pieces
April 28,2004. of evidence she appended to her opposition.
To satisfy the judgment, the sheriff Such as the fact that the building was
levied on a building w/c was declared for declared for taxation purposes in the name of
taxation purposes in the name of FGCI. The lots FGCI and they were in actual possession of the
in w/c it was erected were registered in the building. While it is true that tax receipts are not
names of the Sps Garcia. incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they
So the Sps Garcia filed an affidavit of 3rd constitute credible proof of claim of title over the
party claim and a motion to set aside notice of property.
sale on execution claiming that they are the
lawful owners of the property w/c was *where there are factual and evidenciary
erroneously levied upon by the sheriff. Sps evidence to prove that the building and the lot
Garcia argued that the building was mistakenly on which it stands are owned by different
assessed by the City Assessor in the name of persons, they shall be treated separately. As
FGCI. such, the building or the lot, as the case may be,
RTC issued an order directing the sheriff can be made liable to answer for the obligation
to hold in abeyance the conduct of the sale on of its respective owner.
execution (Feb 24, 2005)
Villasi filed a MR but it was denied. CA
also dismissed the petition.

Issue: WON the CA erred in upholding the


decision of the TC to suspend and hold in
abeyance the sale on execution on the basis of
an affidavit of 3rd party claim.

Held: YES
Section 16 of Rule 39 specifically
provides that a 3rd person may avail himself of
the remedies of terceria, to determine whether
the sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken hold of