G.R. No. L-22636 June 11, 1970
NICANOR DE GUZMAN, JR., plaintiff-appellant, vs. DOLORES L. SANTOS, as Administratrix of the Estate of Amador D. Santos, deceased; BENITO MACROHON, as Provincial Sheriff of Rizal and LIBERATO C. MANALO, as Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Dolores L. Santos, as administratrix, filed an unlawful detainer case against Nicanor de Guzman, Jr. and Abelardo Santos. The municipal court dismissed the complaint. On appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal (Civil Case No. 6512), the defendants were declared in default, and a judgment was rendered ordering them to vacate the premises and pay accrued rentals, attorney’s fees, and costs. A writ of execution was issued. The provincial sheriff, through his deputy, levied on and sold at public auction de Guzman’s real property (a house and lot in Mandaluyong) to satisfy the money judgment. The property, worth over P200,000, was sold to Santos for only P10,313.20. De Guzman filed a motion in Civil Case No. 6512 to quash the writ and annul the sheriff’s proceedings, which was denied. Subsequently, de Guzman filed the present separate action (Civil Case No. 7266) to annul the default judgment, the certificate of sale, and the deed of absolute sale, and to recover damages. The CFI rendered a decision annulling the sheriff’s sale and all related proceedings, making the preliminary injunction permanent, dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim, and ordering the sheriff to enforce the writ by first proceeding against de Guzman’s personal properties. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the default judgment in Civil Case No. 6512 is void for lack of notice to de Guzman.
2. Whether the present action is barred by the pendency of another action or by a prior judgment/order.
3. Whether the sheriff’s sale is null and void.
4. Whether de Guzman is guilty of laches.
5. Whether the counterclaim for damages should be dismissed.

RULING

1. The default judgment is not void. Notice of the receipt of the ejectment case record was served on de Guzman’s counsel of record, which constitutes notice to the client. Furthermore, a defendant who has not filed an answer within the reglementary period is not entitled to notice of a motion to declare him in default.
2. The present action is not barred. The order denying de Guzman’s motion in Civil Case No. 6512 was issued after the present case was filed, so it could not bar the institution of this action. The cause in the present case (to annul the judgment in Civil Case No. 6512) is different from the cause in the motion filed in that case (which pertained to the execution proceedings), and the issue of the validity of the judgment could not be properly settled in Civil Case No. 6512 itself.
3. The sheriff’s sale is null and void. The trial court correctly annulled it on several grounds: (a) The sheriff failed to proceed against de Guzman’s personal properties first, as required by the Rules of Court, since it was undisputed he owned sufficient personal properties to satisfy the judgment. (b) The price for which the property was sold (P10,313.20) was grossly inadequate compared to its actual value (over P200,000), which is a ground for setting aside the sale.
4. De Guzman is not guilty of laches. He actively asserted his rights through various motions and even a special civil action in the Court of Appeals from the time the default judgment was rendered.
5. The counterclaim for damages was properly dismissed as a mere corollary to the main issues already resolved.
The decision of the Court of First Instance was affirmed.