G.R. No. L-22606 and L-23114, December 12, 1975
THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SANDRA K. SHAOUY, respondents. CHARLES HOLLMANN, petitioner, vs. SANDRA SHAOUY and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Sandra Shaouy was a tenant of Charles Hollmann. Hollmann filed an unlawful detainer case, which was decided based on a compromise agreement wherein Shaouy acknowledged a rental debt and agreed to secure a performance bond. Upon Shaouy’s failure to pay, Hollmann obtained a writ of execution. The Provincial Sheriff levied on Shaouy’s personal properties and advertised a sale for August 23, 1957.
To stop the sale, Shaouy filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance (CFI), which issued a preliminary injunction conditioned on an P8,000 bond. The CFI denied Shaouy’s motion to reduce the bond and directed her to file it by August 23. She failed to do so. Consequently, the sheriff proceeded with the sale on August 24, selling the properties to Hollmann for P801.00 against a judgment of P6,504.50. The sheriff later garnished a credit due to Shaouy to satisfy the deficiency.

ISSUE

Was the sheriff’s auction sale of Shaouy’s properties valid?

RULING

No, the auction sale was void. The legal logic is twofold, based on mandatory procedural requirements for execution sales. First, the sale was held on August 24, 1957, not on the advertised date of August 23. A change in the sale date necessitates new notices to the debtor and the public under Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The sheriff’s failure to provide such notice rendered the sale invalid.
Second, the sheriff failed to comply with the mandatory posting requirement. The rules required the notice of sale to be posted in three public places in the municipality for not less than five nor more than ten days. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found this omission, which independently nullifies the sale. The gross inadequacy of the price—P801 for properties securing a P6,504.50 debt—further underscored the sale’s inequity, shocking the conscience of the court. Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ decision annulling the sale and holding the sheriff and Hollmann jointly liable for the value of the levied items was affirmed.