G.R. No. 165060 November 27, 2008
ALBINO JOSEF, petitioner, vs. OTELIO SANTOS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Albino Josef was the defendant in a collection of sum of money case filed by respondent Otelio Santos. The Regional Trial Court found petitioner liable. His appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied, and his petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed, making the judgment final and executory. Respondent moved for a writ of execution. Petitioner opposed, claiming insolvency and that the house and lot subject to execution was his family home, exempt from execution, and that the household items belonged to his children. The trial court granted the motion for execution without addressing these claims in its Order dated July 16, 2003. A writ was issued, and both personal properties and a real property (TCT No. N-105280) were levied and sold at auction. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, questioning the levy and sale. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s July 16, 2003 Order and for failure to indicate the timeliness of the petition’s filing.

ISSUE

1. Whether the levy and sale of the personal belongings of petitioner’s children and the attachment and sale of his alleged family home are legal.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition for certiorari on technical grounds was justified.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious. On the first issue, the trial court committed a serious error by ignoring petitioner’s material allegations in his opposition to the motion for execution regarding the exemption of his family home and the ownership of the personal properties. Its July 16, 2003 Order, which failed to resolve these claims, was null and void. Consequently, the writ of execution based on it was likewise void. The trial court had a duty to conduct an inquiry into the veracity of petitioner’s claims, following specific procedures to determine if the property was a family home under the Family Code and if the personal properties were exempt or owned by third parties. Its failure to do so resulted in serious injustice. On the second issue, the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed the petition on purely technical grounds. Since the trial court’s Order was void, it could be challenged directly by certiorari without a prior motion for reconsideration. A void order is a “lawless thing” that can be attacked anytime. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court to conduct the proper inquiry into petitioner’s claims.