GR 156539; (September 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156539 September 5, 2007
Domingo A. Dizon, petitioner, vs. Elpidio R. Dizon, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Domingo Dizon purchased a house and lot from his nephew, respondent Elpidio Dizon, who failed to deliver the property. The sale was rescinded by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which ordered Elpidio to pay Domingo specified sums. To satisfy the judgment, a sheriff’s auction of Elpidio’s properties was held on April 3, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. Both parties participated. The auction concluded at 10:25 a.m., with Domingo declared the highest bidder at P180,000, as recorded in the signed Minutes of Sheriff’s Sale.
Later that same day, the sheriff presented a “Supplemental Minutes on Sheriff’s Sale” to Elpidio, indicating that Domingo’s counsel had arrived at 10:45 a.m. and offered a new, higher bid of P1,690,074.41 for the same properties. Elpidio refused to sign, arguing the auction was already perfected and the supplemental sale was void. The RTC denied his motion to quash, prompting a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the validity of the Supplemental Minutes on Sheriff’s Sale executed after the perfection of the auction sale.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on Article 1476(2) of the Civil Code, which governs the perfection of auction sales. It provides that a sale by auction is perfected when the auctioneer announces its perfection by the fall of the hammer or in a customary manner. Until such announcement, any bidder may retract a bid. The record established that the public auction began at 10:00 a.m. on April 3, 1997, and was concluded at 10:25 a.m. with the sheriff declaring petitioner as the highest bidder. This act constituted the announcement of perfection.
Consequently, the auction sale was perfected at 10:25 a.m. Any subsequent attempt to alter the essential terms, such as the consideration, after perfection is invalid. The supplemental bid offered at 10:45 a.m. at the instance of only one party (the petitioner) was a unilateral modification of a perfected contract. Therefore, the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to quash and validating the supplemental sale. The Court of Appeals correctly set aside the RTC’s orders.