G.R. No. L-69294, June 30, 1987
ZACARIAS COMETA AND HERCO REALTY AND AGRI-DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND JOSE FRANCO, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a final judgment in a suit for damages, Civil Case No. 17585, wherein respondent Jose Franco was awarded a sum of money against petitioner Zacarias Cometa. To satisfy the judgment, the sheriff levied upon and sold at public auction three of Cometa’s commercial lots to Franco as the highest bidder for the judgment amount. The sheriff’s return was made, and the trial court later ordered the cancellation of Cometa’s titles and the issuance of new ones in Franco’s favor, an order which this Court ultimately upheld. Subsequently, Franco filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. The Regional Trial Court initially granted but later reconsidered and set aside the motion, deeming the issuance premature.
This reconsideration was prompted by a separate pending action, Civil Case No. 43846, filed by petitioner Herco Realty (which claimed ownership via a pre-sale transfer from Cometa) seeking to annul the levy and execution sale. The annulment case challenged the validity of the levy and sale on procedural grounds, including the alleged failure to exhaust personal properties first, the sale en masse, and the gross inadequacy of the purchase price—properties valued at P500,000 were sold for only P57,396.85. Franco then elevated the matter via certiorari to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court and ordered the issuance of the writ of possession.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court can legally issue a writ of possession in favor of the execution purchaser despite a pending independent action challenging the validity of the levy and execution sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court’s order withholding the writ of possession. The legal logic centers on the nature and prerequisites of a writ of possession following an execution sale. Under Section 35, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, a purchaser at an execution sale is entitled to a conveyance and possession only after the redemption period expires without redemption. Crucially, the issuance of such a writ is not a mere ministerial act if the very validity of the execution sale preceding it is legitimately contested in a separate proceeding.
The Court held that the writ of possession is complementary to and dependent upon a valid execution process. Any fundamental flaw in the antecedent stages of levy and sale directly affects the entitlement to possession. Here, the pending annulment case directly impugns the validity of the levy and sale. If the sale is ultimately declared void, the purchaser would have acquired no rightful interest entitling him to possession. The appellate court’s emphasis on Cometa’s failure to redeem was misplaced, as redemption constitutes an admission of the sale’s regularity; contesting its validity is logically inconsistent with redeeming the property.
Furthermore, equitable considerations strongly influenced the decision. The stark disparity between the property’s conceded value (P500,000) and the auction price (P57,396.85) raised serious questions about potential injustice. Since this issue of gross inadequacy is precisely the subject of the pending annulment case, issuing the writ preemptively could cause irreparable harm. Therefore, the writ of possession must be withheld pending the final resolution of the action challenging the validity of the execution sale.