G.R. No. 27878 , December 31, 1927
CLARA GONZALEZ, for herself and as judicial administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Agaton Sanchez, plaintiff-appellant, vs. GIL CALIMBAS and PEDRO POBLETE, provincial deputy sheriff of Bataan, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Clara Gonzalez, in her own right and as administratrix of her deceased husband Agaton Sanchez’s estate, filed an action to recover a residential lot and building in Balanga, Bataan, and to claim rent and damages for unlawful deprivation of possession. The property was sold at a sheriff’s auction on March 27, 1926, to satisfy a money judgment against Sanchez and Gonzalez obtained by Gil Calimbas. The property was purchased by Calimbas. On August 11, 1926, less than five months after the sale, Deputy Sheriff Pedro Poblete, at Calimbas’s instance, ejected Gonzalez from the property and delivered possession to Calimbas. Gonzalez argued she had the right to retain possession during the one-year redemption period. The defendants contended the purchaser was entitled to immediate possession upon the sale’s completion.

ISSUE

Does the purchaser at an execution sale of real property have the right to take possession, and does the sheriff have the authority to eject the judgment debtor in possession, *before* the expiration of the period of redemption?

RULING

NO. The judgment debtor in possession of real property sold under execution is entitled to retain possession and enjoy its use and profits during the entire period allowed by law for redemption. The sheriff’s act of ejecting the judgment debtor before the redemption period expires is unlawful and constitutes a trespass.

The Court explained that the purchaser at an execution sale acquires only an inchoate right during the redemption period. The effective conveyance occurs only upon the execution and delivery of the sheriff’s deed after the redemption period expires. The certificate of sale is merely a memorial of the purchase and does not transfer the right to possession. This rule is supported by previous decisions (Velasco vs. Rosenberg’s, Inc.; Riosa vs. Verzosa and Bulan) and is implicit in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The exception is when the property is in the possession of a tenant at the time of sale, governed by a different statutory rule.

The sheriff’s powers are purely ministerial. Without a specific judicial order (e.g., a writ of possession issued after the redemption period), the sheriff has no authority to dispossess an occupant by force. In doing so, the sheriff exceeds his powers and becomes a mere trespasser.

Consequently, the trial court’s judgment absolving the defendants was reversed. The plaintiff, having been unlawfully dispossessed, is entitled to restoration of possession and damages.