G.R. No. L-4443 November 29, 1951
CORAZON ROQUE, petitioner, vs. BONIFACIO YSIP, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, MELITON CASTILLO, AMANDA ILAC REYES, ILUMINADA S. CASTRO, CAROLINA GATMAITAN VDA. DE SANTILLAN and JOSE A. REYES, respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 221 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, judgment was rendered against petitioner Corazon Roque (defendant) to pay P18,420 and costs. On August 2, 1949, upon petition of the plaintiffs (respondents except the judge), respondent Judge Bonifacio Ysip issued an alias writ of execution for the unpaid balance of P2,920. The plaintiffs informed the provincial sheriff that the defendant had a right or share in a parcel of land described in Original Certificate of Title No. 8550, “together with the improvements consisting of a house and a warehouse.” The sheriff announced the sale at public auction of the judgment debtor’s interest in the land by publishing notice in the Manila Chronicle and posting notices in three public places in Malolos, Bulacan. The notice stated the sale involved the parcel of land “together with the improvements thereon.” On October 4, 1949, the date of the sale, no bidder appeared except the plaintiffs, who bid P3,060.20 (covering the judgment balance, notice, sale expenses, and sheriff’s fees) for the debtor’s interest in the land and improvements. The sheriff executed the certificate of sale on October 29, 1949. On January 20, 1950, the plaintiffs filed a petition to set aside the sale on the ground it was made “under a clear mistake of fact.” The respondent court denied this on January 31, 1950, but upon reconsideration, on March 15, 1950, it set aside the sale due to a “clear mistake.” The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on October 27, 1950, as filed out of time, with the court suggesting a petition for relief under Rule 38. The defendant filed such a petition on November 14, 1950, but it was denied on December 18, 1950, for being filed out of time. Petitioner Roque filed this action to annul the March 15, 1950 order, alleging excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the sheriff’s sale at public auction on the ground of a clear mistake of fact.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that courts have control over execution proceedings and may set aside a sale when a mistake of fact has been committed to administer justice. The order of March 15, 1950, setting aside the sale, was a lawful and valid exercise of the respondent court’s jurisdiction and did not constitute excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The Court noted that the petition for relief from the March 15, 1950 order was filed more than six months later (on November 14, 1950), and its denial was in accordance with Section 3, Rule 38. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.