GR 169135; (June, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 169135; June 18, 2010
JOSE DELOS REYES, Petitioner, vs. JOSEPHINE ANNE B. RAMNANI, Respondent.
FACTS
On October 11, 1977, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision in favor of respondent Josephine Anne B. Ramnani. To enforce this judgment, a writ of execution was issued, leading to a public auction on June 6, 1978, where Ramnani was the highest bidder for the property covered by TCT No. 480537. A certificate of sale was issued in her favor on the same date. The certificate was annotated on the title on March 8, 1990, and the petitioner, Jose Delos Reyes, failed to redeem the property within the one-year redemption period.
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, arguing the motion was fatally defective for lack of a notice of hearing and that the execution of the 1977 decision was barred by prescription. The RTC granted the motion, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion despite alleged procedural defects.
2. Whether the respondent’s right to secure a final certificate of sale is barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling in favor of the respondent. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the motion for the issuance of a final certificate of sale was a non-litigious motion. Its purpose was to direct a ministerial duty of the sheriff to complete a prior execution, not to seek new judicial relief. Therefore, the strict requirement of a notice of hearing under the Rules of Court was inapplicable, and no grave abuse of discretion attended the RTC’s cognizance of the motion.
On the substantive issue of prescription, the Court clarified that the judgment was enforced within the reglementary period. The five-year period for execution by motion under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was complied with when the levy and auction sale were conducted on June 6, 1978, less than a year after the 1977 decision. The execution was thus timely. The subsequent issuance of a final certificate of sale is a mere formality that confirms the title already vested in the purchaser after the expiration of the redemption period. Since the petitioner failed to redeem the property within one year from the annotation of the certificate of sale, his right of redemption was foreclosed, and the sale became absolute. Consequently, the respondent is entitled to the final certificate of sale as a matter of right, and her claim is not barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.