G.R. No. L-18735 December 29, 1966
NARCISO DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE NICASIO YATCO, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF BULACAN and ISABELO DE CHANGCO, respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 2869 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, plaintiff Isabelo de Changco obtained a money judgment against defendant Narciso del Rosario on June 16, 1955. On February 10, 1956, de Changco asked for a writ of execution. Pursuant to this writ, the provincial sheriff levied upon del Rosario’s property (covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4853) and caused a notice of levy to be inscribed in the Registry of Deeds on February 16, 1956. On December 28, 1959, del Rosario mortgaged the levied property to third parties. Later, on June 14, 1961, del Rosario and his mortgagees filed a Petition to cancel the Notice of Levy, arguing that more than five years had elapsed since the levy without an execution sale, thereby barring the plaintiff from enforcing the judgment and limiting him to an ordinary action to revive it. De Changco opposed, contending the judgment was already enforced by the issuance of the writ and the valid levy. The court issued an order on July 8, 1961, giving de Changco sixty (60) days to proceed with the sale of the levied properties, otherwise the levy would be cancelled. Del Rosario’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to file the instant petition for certiorari with injunction, arguing that an execution sale could no longer take place after more than five years from the entry of judgment.

ISSUE

Whether an execution sale can no longer be validly conducted because more than five years have elapsed since the entry of the judgment, despite a writ of execution and a valid levy having been made within the five-year period.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and dissolved the preliminary injunction. The Court held that Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which provides that a judgment may be executed on motion within five years from its entry or finality, only limits the time within which a writ of execution may be issued to enforce a judgment. It does not prescribe a period within which the sheriff’s sale at public auction must take place after the issuance of the writ and a valid levy. Citing the precedent in Government of the Philippines v. Echaus and Nestora Rigor Vda. de Quiambao v. Manila Motor Co., Inc., the Court ruled that a valid execution issued and levy made within the statutory period may be enforced by a sale thereafter. The levy is the essential act that sets the property apart for the satisfaction of the judgment and takes it into the custody of the law. Once levied, the defendant’s interest is limited to the property’s application to the judgment, irrespective of when it is sold. Since the execution and levy in this case were made within the five-year period, the respondent judge committed no error in issuing the orders giving the plaintiff time to sell the properties.