G.R. No. 150467 . January 31, 2005.
THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ILOCOS NORTE, NATIVIDAD R. VDA. DE RAVINA, EVELYN RAVINA, APOLONIO RAVINA, GLORIA RAVINA, THELMA RAVINA, and JEANILYN RAVINA, petitioners, vs. BRUNO LORENZO and LORENZA DELA CRUZ LORENZO, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a final and executory 1962 Workmen’s Compensation Commission decision ordering respondents Lorenzo spouses to pay petitioners, the heirs of a deceased employee, the sum of ₱4,230.00. Petitioners secured a 1964 Court of First Instance (CFI) judgment affirming the award. Upon motion, a writ of execution was issued in 1965. The Provincial Sheriff levied upon and sold at public auction seven parcels of land belonging to the Lorenzos to satisfy the judgment.
In 1971, the Lorenzos filed an action for annulment of the sheriff’s sale. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), in a 1991 decision, declared the sale null and void. The trial court found procedural irregularities, including a lack of sufficient notice to the judgment debtors and a failure to first levy on personal properties before resorting to real property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s annulment of the sheriff’s sale of the respondents’ real properties based on alleged procedural defects in the execution proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the annulment of the sheriff’s sale. The execution process was fundamentally flawed for violating the mandatory procedure under the Rules of Court. Section 9(b), Rule 39 (now Section 15, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules) requires that to satisfy a money judgment, the sheriff must first levy on the judgment obligor’s personal properties. Only if the personal properties are insufficient may the sheriff proceed to levy on real properties. The sheriff must sell only so much of the property as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment.
The Court found that the sheriff failed to adhere to this rule. The judgment debt was only ₱4,235.00 plus interest, yet the sheriff immediately levied upon and sold seven parcels of land with a total assessed value of ₱81,602.00 without any showing that he first determined the insufficiency of the Lorenzos’ personal property. This procedural lapse rendered the execution sale void. Given this fatal defect, the Court deemed it unnecessary to delve extensively into the ancillary issue of the propriety of the notices served. The factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding, especially absent a showing that they overlooked material facts. Consequently, the sheriff’s final deed of sale was correctly declared null and void.