GR 35726; (October, 1932) (Digest)
G.R. No. 35726 ; October 17, 1932
BRAULIO BALAGTAS, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. CIRIACA ARGUELLES, defendant. FERNANDO QUISUMBING, appellant.
FACTS
Plaintiffs-appellees Braulio Balagtas et al. filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Laguna to compel the sheriff to execute a deed of redemption over properties sold at an execution sale to appellant Fernando Quisumbing for only P10, despite the properties being worth P35,000. The lower court granted the redemption. Quisumbing moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting his appeal. The execution sale arose from a judgment for costs against several debtors in favor of Ciriaca Arguelles. The deputy sheriff’s notice of sale advertised the sale of “all and any rights” that the judgment debtors had or might have in Civil Case No. 5396 (Balagtas et al. vs. Arguelles) and in the judgment rendered therein. The sale was scheduled for January 19, 1931, with notices posted on January 6, 1931.
ISSUE
Whether the execution sale conducted by the deputy sheriff was valid.
RULING
No. The execution sale was null and void. The Supreme Court held that the deputy sheriff violated mandatory provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. First, under Section 457, real property consisting of several known lots must be sold separately, and personal property capable of manual delivery must be sold in view of attendees and in parcels likely to bring the highest price. The sheriff’s generic description and lump-sum sale of “all rights” in a case and its judgment failed to comply. Second, under Section 454, notice of sale for real property must be posted for twenty days, and for personal property, for not less than five nor more than ten days. The notices here were posted only thirteen days before the sale (January 6 to 19), which was insufficient for real property and potentially improper for personal property. Since no valid sale occurred, the plaintiffs had no need to redeem the properties. The order denying reconsideration was affirmed, and the case was dismissed with costs against appellant Quisumbing.
AI Generated by Armztrong.