GR 146996; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146996 ; July 30, 2004
AURORA GUIANG, petitioner, vs. EVA T. CO, doing business under the business name, ETC LENDING INVESTOR, respondent.
FACTS
A final and executory RTC decision ordered petitioner Aurora Guiang to pay respondent Eva T. Co P64,870.00 plus interest. To satisfy the judgment, the deputy sheriff levied and sold at public auction thirty (30) parcels of land owned by Guiang for P308,701.00. Guiang received the sheriff’s certificate of sale on August 20, 1993. Instead of immediately challenging the execution sale, Guiang filed a separate complaint for redemption and consignation, which was dismissed. Her appeal from that dismissal was also dismissed due to her failure to file an appellant’s brief.
Subsequently, on August 29, 2000, Guiang filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) for annulment of the writ of execution under Rule 47. She alleged the deputy sheriff violated the Rules of Court by selling all thirty parcels in a lump sum instead of selling only a sufficient portion and by not selling separate lots individually. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that annulment under Rule 47 was not the proper remedy given her failure to avail of ordinary remedies, including her abandoned appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of the writ of execution under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The Court held that a petition for annulment of judgment or final order under Rule 47 is an extraordinary remedy available only when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, or petition for relief are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. The Court emphasized that this remedy is based on either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.
In this case, the Court found that Guiang failed to exhaust ordinary remedies. She did not file a motion in the trial court to annul the levy and sale after the auction. Instead, she filed a separate action for redemption, which constituted an implied admission of the execution sale’s validity. Her subsequent appeal from the dismissal of that action was lost due to her own negligence in not filing a brief. Therefore, her situation was not one where ordinary remedies were unavailable through no fault of her own, which is a prerequisite for a Rule 47 petition. Consequently, the CA correctly dismissed her petition. However, the Court directed the Office of the Court Administrator to investigate the sheriff’s alleged irregularities in conducting the execution sale for potential administrative liability.