You are on page 1of 5

XLIII. RULE 39: SECS.

15 – 30 In the case at bar, petitioner filed an independent action for the


annulment of the certificate of sale issued in favor of private
respondent, contending that the property levied upon and sold
NOVERNIA P. NAGUIT vs. CA, OSLER U. to private respondent by virtue of the writ of execution issued in
PADUA and NORBERTO B. MAGSAJO Criminal Case No. 90-2645 was her exclusive property, not that
G.R. No. 137675 December 5, 2000 of the judgment obligor. Pursuant to our ruling in Sy v. Discaya,
petitioner is deemed a stranger to the action wherein the writ of
QUICK SUMMARY: execution was issued and is therefore justified in bringing an
RTC ruled that petitioner’s husband is liable for violation of BP independent action to vindicate her right of ownership over the
22. In view of this, petitioner’s property was levied upon and was subject property.
sold to respondents. Petitioner filed for the annulment of sale Contrary to the stand taken by the trial court, the filing of such
against the respondents before the RTC on the ground that the an independent action cannot be considered an encroachment
property levied upon and sold to private respondent is her upon the jurisdiction of a co-equal and coordinate court. The
exclusive property. RTC denied petitioner's prayer. The CA court issuing the writ of execution may enforce its authority only
upheld the trial court's decision. SC ruled that the court issuing over properties of the judgment debtor; thus, the sheriff acts
the writ of execution may enforce its authority only over properly only when he subjects to execution property undeniably
properties of the judgment debtor. If the sheriff levies upon the belonging to the judgment debtor. If the sheriff levies upon the
assets of a third person in which the judgment debtor has no assets of a third person in which the judgment debtor has no
interest, then he is acting beyond the limits of his authority. interest, then he is acting beyond the limits of his authority and
is amenable to control and correction by a court of competent
Facts: jurisdiction in a separate and independent action. This is in
In a decision rendered on 15 October 1991, the Regional Trial consonance with the well-established principle that no man shall
Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 133, found Rolando Naguit liable be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger.
for violation of BP 22, and ordered him to indemnify private Execution of a judgment can only be issued against a party to
respondent Osler U. Padua. A writ of execution was issued by the action, and not against one who has not yet had his day in
said court and pursuant thereto, respondent Sheriff Norberto B. court.
Magsajo levied upon a condominium unit. Consequently, the
property was sold at a public auction in favor of private
respondent, as the highest bidder. The certificate of sale was MATILDE S. PALICTE vs. HON. RAMOLETE and MARCELO
issued in the name of private respondent SOTTO, Administrator
G.R. No. L-55076 September 21, 1987
Petitioner filed a complaint with the RTC of Makati against
private respondent Padua and respondent Sheriff Magsajo for QUICK SUMMARY:
the annulment of sale and for damages, with a prayer for the Certain properties administered by respondent administrator
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in order to enjoin the were levied upon. Within the period for redemption, petitioner
final conveyance of title over the condominium unit to private redeemed from the purchaser 4 lots. Subsequently, petitioner
respondent. Petitioner claimed that the debt contracted by her filed a motion with respondent Judge for the transfer to her name
husband did not redound to the benefit of the family, nor was it of the titles to the 4 parcels of land. This was opposed by
made with her consent, and therefore, should not be charged to respondent administrator on the ground that petitioner is not one
the conjugal partnership of gains or to her exclusive property; of those authorized to redeem. The lower court held that
that the condominium unit levied upon and sold to private petitioner does not qualify as a successor-in-interest who may
respondent is her exclusive property, not the judgment obligor's; redeem the real properties sold. However, SC ruled that the
and that consequently, the levy and sale of the condominium petitioner, as a legitimate heir, legitimate heir, qualifies as a
unit are void. successor-in- interest.

RTC of Makati denied petitioner's prayer for the issuance of Facts:


preliminary injunction, explaining that if plaintiff believes that
there were irregularities in the auction sale of the property A sale at public auction was held pursuant to a writ of execution
subject of this case which is claimed to be owned by the issued by the respondent judge in the case of Pilar Teves, et al.
petitioner, the problems should have been threshed out before vs Marcelo Sotto, Administrator, for the satisfaction of judgment
the RTC Makati, Branch 133, which court authorized the levy on in the amount of P725,270.00.
execution of judgment of property of plaintiff in this case.
Besides, the petitioner should have elevated the matter to the
Certain properties belonging to the late Don Filemon Sotto and
higher tribunal, and seek proper injunctive relief, and not to refer
administered by respondent Marcelo Sotto were levied upon.
to this Court which does not exercise an appellate authority over
Some of the properties were awarded to Pilar Teves. The
the court that issued the aforesaid writ of execution.
residential house situated on a government lot at Lahug, Cebu
City, was awarded to lone bidder Asuncion Villarante.
The trial court issued an order denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration and dismissing the case on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction. The CA upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss Within the period for redemption, petitioner Matilde S. Palicte,
the case. In its decision, the appellate court explained that since as one of the heirs of the late Don Filemon Sotto, redeemed from
petitioner is the spouse of the judgment debtor she cannot be purchaser Pilar Teves, 4 lots.
considered a stranger to the case. Hence, the present petition.
A deed of redemption was issued for these lots. Subsequently,
Issue: Whether petitioner is deemed a stranger to the action petitioner Palicte filed a motion with respondent Judge Ramolete
wherein the writ of execution was issued and is therefore for the transfer to her name of the titles to the 4 parcels of land
justified in bringing an independent action covered by the deed of redemption.

Ruling: Yes.
This motion was opposed by the plaintiffs in Civil Case entitled payment but merely for deposit. SC ruled that a check may be
"Pilar Teves, et al. vs Marcelo Sotto, administrator" on the used for the exercise of the right of redemption, the same being
ground that movant, Palicte, is not one of those authorized to a right and not an obligation. However, although respondents
redeem under the provisions of the Rules of Court. properly exercised their right or redemption, they remain liable
of course, for the payment of the redemption price.
The lower court held that although Palicte is one of the declared
heirs, she does not qualify as a successor-in-interest who may
redeem the real properties sold. It ruled that the deed of Facts:
redemption is null and void. The motion of Palicte was denied. RTC of Quezon City 2 rendered judgment in Civil Case entitled
"Alfaro Fortunado v. Angel Bautista," ordering the defendant to
Hence, the present petition. pay damages to the plaintiff. Pursuant to the said judgment,
respondent Basilisa Campano, City Sheriff, levied upon two
Issue: Whether or not petitioner Palicte may validly exercise the parcels of land registered in the name of Bautista. The latter lot
right of redemption under Sec. 29, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. had already been purchased by respondent National Steel
Corporation, but had not yet been registered in its name.
Ruling: Yes.
Sec. 29 of Rule 39 provides: After due notice, these lots were sold at public auction to the
SEC. 29. Who may redeem real property so petitioners as the only bidder. They were issued a certificate of
sold. — Real property sold as provided in the sale which was registered on April 25, 1984.
last preceding section, or any part thereof
sold separately, may be redeemed in the Subsequently, NSC filed with the trial court an urgent motion to
manner hereinafter provided, by the following redeem both lots. This was opposed by the petitioners on the
persons: ground that the movant did not have the personality to
(a) The judgment debtor, or his successor in intervene.
interest in the whole or any part of the
property; As the motion remained unresolved and the period of
(b) A creditor having a lien by attachment, redemption would expire on April 18, 1985, NSC issued to the
judgment or mortgage on the property sold, or sheriff PNB Check which was sufficient to cover the full
on some part thereof, subsequent to the redemption price for both lots.The sheriff acknowledged receipt
judgment under which the property was sold. of the check as redemption money for the two parcels and
Such redeeming creditor is termed a issued a certificate of redemption in favor of NSC and Bautista.
redemptioner.
Bautista wrote the sheriff that he would no longer effect the
Under Subsection (a), property sold subject to redemption may redemption because there was nothing to redeem, the auction
be redeemed by the judgment debtor or his successor-in- sale being null and void.
interest in the whole or any part of the property. Does Matilde
Palicte fall within the term "successor-in-interest"? In the case at The sheriff wired the petitioners’ counsel, notifying him of the
bar, petitioner Palicte is the daughter of the late Don Filemon deposit of the PNB check. The said counsel told the sheriff that
Sotto whose estate was levied upon on execution to satisfy the he was rejecting the check because it was not legal tender and
money judgment against it. She is one of the declared heirs in was not intended for payment but merely for deposit.
Special Proceeding No. 2706-R. As a legitimate heir, she
qualifies as a successor-in- interest. Petitioner requested the sheriff to issue a final deed of sale
over the two lots and deliver the same to them on the ground
The lower court, therefore, erred in considering the person of the that no valid redemption had been effected within the 12-month
administrator as the judgment debtor and as the only period from the registration of the sale. When the request was
"successor-in-interest." The estate of the deceased is the not granted, the petitioners filed with the respondent court a
judgment debtor and the heirs who will eventually acquire that petition for mandamus. The respondent court denied
estate should not be prohibited from doing their share in its mandamus but granted injunction to restrain the registration of
preservation. the certificate of redemption in favor of NSC and Bautista.
Although petitioner Palicte validly redeemed the properties, her
motion to transfer the titles of the four (4) parcels of land covered Aggrieved, the petitioners moved for partial reconsideration.
by the Deed of Redemption from registration in the name of While their motion was pending, NSC filed a Manifestation
Filemon Sotto to her name cannot prosper at this time. informing the respondent court that the certificate of
Otherwise, to allow such transfer of title would amount to a redemption had already been registered and TCT No. T-27154
distribution of the estate. had been issued in its favor.

The respondent court denied the petitioners’ motion for


ALFARO FORTUNADO, et al. v. CA and NATIONAL STEEL reconsideration. Hence, this appeal by certiorari.
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 78556. April 25, 1991 Issue: Whether or not redemption had been validly effected by
the private respondents.
QUICK SUMMARY:
Respondent purchased a lot which was previously levied upon Ruling: Yes.
by the sheriff. The said lot was not yet registered in respondent’s
name. The lots were sold at a public auction to the petitioner. Although the private respondents in the case at bar did not file
Hence, respondent filed with the trial court an urgent motion to a redemption case against petitioners, it should be noted that
redeem the lots and later on issued a check to the sheriff to private respondents NSC filed an Urgent Motion for
cover the redemption price. The petitioner rejected the check Redemption dated February 11, 1985, and Bautista filed an
because it was not legal tender and was not intended for
Urgent Motion (To Deposit Redemption Money with Quezon simultaneously consigned a crossed check with the City Sheriff
City Clerk of Court) dated March 27, 1985. The motions were and filed a redemption case against BPI. CA ruled that the
well within the redemption period. consignation made by the petitioner was not valid. SC ruled
otherwise stating that under the last sentence of Section 31,
In the United States, it has also been held and recognized that Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, it is expressly provided that the
a payment by check or draft or bank bills or currency which is tender of the redemption money may be made to the Sheriff who
not legal tender is effective if the officer accepts such payment. made the sale. And the redemption is not rendered invalid by
If in good faith the redemptioner pays, and the officer receives the fact that the said officer accepted a check for the amount
before the expiration of the time of redemption, an ordinary necessary to make the redemption instead of requiring payment
banker’s check, the payment is regarded as sufficient. in money.

We find nothing wrong with Bautista’s letter of March 21, 1985, Facts:
where he made his redemption of the lot covered by TCT No.
T-7625 subject to the reservation that "the same shall not be Ceferino de la Cruz died leaving as his only heirs his widow,
taken to mean my acknowledgment of the validity of the Consuelo de la Cruz, and their children (hereinafter referred to
aforesaid writ of execution and sale . . . nor . . . as waiver on as the De la Cruzes). At the time of his demise, Ceferino left a
my part of any of the legal rights and remedies available to me parcel of land (homestead land). In a deed of sale executed by
under the circumstances." Had he not done so, estoppel might the De la Cruzes, the homestead land was sold to the spouses
have operated against him. As we held in Cometa v. IAC, 15 Jose Tolentino and Vicenta Tolentino (hereinafter referred to as
"redemption is an implied admission of the regularity of the the Tolentinos). The Tolentinos took immediate possession of
sale and would stop the petitioner from later impugning its the homestead land and caused the issuance of T.C.T. No. T-
validity on that ground." In questioning the writ of execution 11135 in their names.
and sale and at the same time redeeming his property,
Bautista was exercising alternative reliefs.
The Tolentinos constituted a first mortgage over the homestead
In Javellana, it was contended that the position of Luis Mirasol land, together with two other parcels of land covered in favor of
as a litigant in the prior appeal was inconsistent with his BPI. Another mortgage was constituted over the said properties
position as litigant in the redemption case and that he was in 1964 in favor of PBC. The Tolentinos failed to pay their
estopped from now claiming as redemptioner the property mortgage indebtedness to the BPI upon maturity in the judicial
which he had earlier claimed as owner. The Court held: foreclosure sale that followed, conducted by the City Sheriff of
We are unable to see any force in the suggestions; as the Davao, BPI was the sole and highest bidder.
positions occupied by this litigant are based upon alternative
rather than upon opposed pretension. No one can question the Meanwhile, the De la Cruzes filed an action with the CFI of
right of a litigant to claim property as owner and to seek in the Davao against the Tolentinos for the repurchase of the
same proceeding alternative relief founded upon some homestead land, on the ground that they had tried to repurchase
secondary right. The right of redemption, for instance, is said land extrajudicially for several times already but that the
always considered compatible with ownership, and one who Tolentinos would not heed their request, thus constraining the
fails to obtain relief in the sense of absolute owner may De la Cruzes to file a court action for the repurchase thereof.
successfully assert the other right. That which a litigant may do
in any one case can of course be done in two different The Tolentinos filed a Motion to Dismiss the repurchase case on
proceedings. the ground that the complaint states no cause of action, but said
motion was denied by the lower court.
We are not, by this decision, sanctioning the use of a check for
the payment of obligations over the objection of the creditor.
What we are saying is that a check may be used for the Upon a manifestation filed by the De la Cruzes, the lower court
exercise of the right of redemption, the same being a right and issued an Order declaring the Tolentinos as "having no
not an obligation. The tender of a check is sufficient to compel standing" in the proceedings therein, to which the latter filed a
redemption but is not in itself a payment that relieves the motion for its reconsideration. This motion, as well as their
redemptioner from his liability to pay the redemption price. In second Motion for Reconsideration, was denied by the lower
other words, while we hold that the private respondents court.
properly exercised their right or redemption, they remain liable
of course, for the payment of the redemption price. Subsequently, the lower court rendered a decision allowing the
De la Cruzes to repurchase the homestead land. Upon payment
by the De la Cruzes of the amount representing the repurchase
VICENTA P. TOLENTINO and JOSE TOLENTINO vs. price to the BPI, the latter executed a deed of conveyance over
CA, BPI, CONSUELO B. DE LA CRUZ, et al. the homestead land. On motion, the lower court issued a writ of
G.R. Nos. L-50405-06 August 5, 1981 possession in favor of the De la Cruzes.

QUICK SUMMARY:
The Tolentinos filed a Motion to Quash the writ of possession
alleging as principal grounds therefor the absence of service on
A parcel of land was sold by the respondent de la Cruz to the their counsel of a copy of the writ of possession, as well as the
petitioner. The petitioner mortgaged the said land to BPI. decision of the lower court declaring the De la Cruzes entitled to
Subsequently, the respondent de la Cruz filed an action with the repurchase the homestead land. The lower court denied the
CFI against the petitioner for the repurchase of the land which Motion to Quash. A motion for reconsideration was likewise
was granted. Thereafter, the lower court issued a writ of denied by the lower court.
possession in favor of the respondent de la Cruz. Petitoner filed
a Motion to Quash the writ of possession but it was denied.
Aggrieved, the Tolentinos filed before the respondent CA a
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed before the respondent CA a
petition for certiorari. This petition was denied by the respondent
petition for certiorari which was also denied. Later, petitioner
court. In the meantime, petitioner Vicente Tolentino went to BPI
Davao Branch, offering to redeem the homestead property for QUICK SUMMARY:
P16,000 covered by a check. Upon being informed that she can An illegal dismissal case was ruled in favour of respondent.
no longer redeem the same for the reason that it was already Upon failure of his employer to pay, sewing machines were
conveyed to the De la Cruzes, Vicente left the office of the levied upon by the sheriff. Petitioner, filed with the NLRC a
manager. Vicente later on consigned with the Office of the City notice of third party claim, alleging that the levied machines were
Sheriff of Davao a crossed PNB check drawn against the PNB previously sold to her. LA and NLRC dismissed petitioner’s claim
Kidapawan Branch, allegedly for the redemption of the 3 lots, on the ground that the Deed of Absolute Sale presented by
including the homestead land. The following day, however, upon petitioner is spurious. Petitioner then filed with the CA a petition
advice of their counsel, Vicente issued a stop-payment order for certiorari. The CA rendered its Decision dismissing the
against the said crossed check purportedly to protect her rights petition, holding that herein petitioner had not succeeded in
and to prevent BPI cashing said check without returning all the substantiating her claim. Petitioner argued that the Rules merely
properties which BPI had foreclosed and purchased. require the third-party claimant to submit an affidavit of title to
the property, the Rule does not require that her title of ownership
Simultaneously with the consignation of the crossed check with be produced. SC affirmed CA’s ruling and stated that the
the City Sheriff of Davao, the Tolentinos filed a complaint circumstances supporting the third-party claimant’s ownership
(redemption case) against BPI, with the Davao CFI for the or possession of the levied properties must be specified.
redemption of their properties, which were foreclosed by and
sold to BPI. BPI seasonably filed an answer with counterclaim Facts:
for exemplary damages in the sum of P5,000 and attorney's fees Domingo Arcega, respondent, filed with the Labor Arbiter a
in the sum of P4,000 plus costs. The trial court rendered its complaint for illegal dismissal against Viabel International
decision dismissing the complaint of the Tolentinos. From that Garments, Inc. (Viabel) and/or Marlon Viado. The Labor Arbiter
decision, both the Tolentinos and BPI appealed to the rendered a Decision in favor of respondent.
respondent Court of Appeals,
Due to the failure of Viabel and/or Marlon Viado to appeal to the
In a consolidated decision, the respondent Court of Appeals
NLRC, the Labor Arbiter’s Decision became final and
held, among others, that consignation by crossed check does
not satisfy the requirements set forth in Article 1249 of the New executory. Upon respondent’s motion, a writ of execution was
Civil Code governing the payment of debts in money. issued. The sheriff of the NLRC levied 28 sewing machines
belonging to Viabel and/or Marlon Viado and scheduled their
The Tolentinos filed a Motion for Reconsideration in CA. This sale at a public auction.
Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the respondent court
for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition for review. Maria Fe Bacos, petitioner, filed with the NLRC a notice of third
party claim, alleging that the levied machines were previously
Issue: Whether or not the tender of payment and consignation sold to her by Marlon Viado. The respondent filed an opposition
made by the Tolentinos before the City Sheriff of Davao were to petitioner’s third- party claim contending that it is frivolous and
valid spurious.

Ruling: Yes. The Labor Arbiter Barcelona dismissed the third-party claim on
the ground that the Deed of Absolute Sale appears to be
When the action to redeem was filed, a simultaneous deposit of spurious. On appeal by petitioner, the NLRC dismissed the
the redemption money was tendered to the Sheriff and under same. In another Resolution, the NLRC denied petitioners
the last sentence of Section 31, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, it
motion for reconsideration.
is expressly provided that the tender of the redemption money
may be made to the Sheriff who made the sale. And the
redemption is not rendered invalid by the fact that the said officer Petitioner then filed with the CA a petition for certiorari. The CA
accepted a check for the amount necessary to make the rendered its Decision dismissing the petition, holding that herein
redemption instead of requiring payment in money. It goes petitioner had not succeeded in substantiating her claim that the
without saying that if he had seen fit to do so, the officer could levied properties were sold to her.
have required payment to be made in lawful money, and he
undoubtedly, in accepting a check, placed himself in a position
Forthwith, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was
where he could be liable to the purchaser at the public auction if
any damage had been suffered by the latter as a result of the denied by the appellate court. Hence, the present petition.
medium in which payment was made. But this cannot affect the
validity of the payment. The check as a medium of payment in Petitioner contends inter alia that the CA erred in dismissing the
commercial transactions is too firmly established by usage to petition, claiming that Section 16, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of
permit of any doubt upon this point at the present day. No Civil Procedure, merely requires the third-party claimant to
importance may thus be attached to the circumstance that a
submit an affidavit of his title to the property. The Rule does not
stop-payment order was issued against said check the day
following the deposit, for the same will not militate against the require that her title of ownership be produced.
right of the Tolentinos to redeem, in the same manner that a
withdrawal of the redemption money being deposited cannot be Issue: Whether the circumstances supporting the third-party
deemed to have forfeited the right to redeem, such redemption claimant’s ownership or possession of the levied properties
being optional and not compulsory. must be specified.
Ruling: Yes.
MA. FE BACOS vs. DOMINGO ARCEGA The petition lacks merit.
G.R. No. 152343 January 18, 2008
lifted or discharged. However, should the third
Section 16, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil party claim be found to be without factual or
Procedure, as amended, provides: legal basis, the sheriff must proceed with the
execution of the property levied upon as if no
SEC. 16. Proceedings where property third party claim has been filed.
claimed by third person. If the property levied
on is claimed by any person other than the It is thus clear that a third-party claim must be supported by an
judgment obligor or his agent, and such affidavit stating the claimant’s title to, or right to possession of
person makes an affidavit of his title thereto the property, and the grounds therefor. In other words, a mere
or right to the possession thereof, stating the affidavit will not suffice. The circumstances supporting the third-
grounds of such right or title, and serves the party claimant’s ownership or possession of the levied
same upon the officer making the levy and a properties must be specified.
copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the
officer shall not be bound to keep the Here, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that the Deed
property, unless such judgment obligee, on of Absolute Sale involving the sewing machines between
demand of the officer, files a bond approved petitioner and Marlon Viado is spurious. Likewise, the Court of
by the court to indemnify the third-party Appeals found that no copy of the said document is on file with
claimant in a sum not less than the value of the Clerk of Court. The appellate court aptly held that the
the property levied on. In case of absence of such document is itself a badge of fraud and
disagreement as to such value, the same simulation that could make any court suspicious and wary of
shall be determined by the court issuing the imputing any legitimacy and validity to the same, and actually
writ of execution. No claim for damages for militates against its use as basis for petitioners claim.
the taking or keeping of the property may be
enforced against the bond unless the action
therefor is filed within one hundred twenty
(120) days from the date of the filing of the
bond.

Corollarily, Sections 2 and 3, Rule VI of the NLRC Manual of


Instructions for Sheriffs provide:

Section 2. Proceedings. If property levied upon


be claimed by any person other than the losing
party or his agent, such person shall make an
affidavit of his title thereto or right to the
possession thereof, stating the grounds of
such right or title and shall file the same with
the sheriff and copies thereof served upon the
Labor Arbiter or proper officer issuing the writ
and upon the prevailing party. Upon receipt of
the third-party claim, all proceedings with
respect to the execution of the property subject
of the third-party claim shall automatically be
suspended and the Labor Arbiter or proper
officer issuing the writ shall conduct a hearing
with due notice to all parties concerned
and resolve the validity of the claim within ten
(10) working days from receipt thereof and his
decision is appealable to the
Commission within ten (10) working days from
notice,
and the Commission shall likewise resolve the
appeal within the same period.

Section 3. Resolution of the Third-Party Claim,


Effect. In the event the third party claim is
declared to be valid, the sheriff shall
immediately release the property to the third
party claimant, his agent or representative and
the levy on execution shall immediately be