GR 43762; (October, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 43762 ; October 31, 1936
TAN SOO HUAT, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PEDRO ONGWICO, defendant-appellant. MONICO UY YT, judicial administrator of the deceased Ignacio Uy Quimco, intervenor-appellee.
FACTS
Tan Soo Huat obtained a money judgment against Pedro Ongwico. To satisfy the judgment, the provincial sheriff levied on and sold Ongwico’s two parcels of land at public auction to Ignacio Uy Quimco. Certificates of sale were issued, subject to a one-year redemption period under the Code of Civil Procedure. After the redemption period expired without any redemption being made, the purchaser (Uy Quimco) having died, his judicial administrator, Monico Uy Yt, filed a motion in the same case asking the court to order the sheriff to issue the final certificates of sale and to place him in possession of the property. Ongwico opposed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to order possession and that the purchaser should file a separate action for ejectment or recovery of ownership.
ISSUE
Whether the court, in the same execution proceeding, has jurisdiction to order the sheriff to place the purchaser (or his successor) in possession of real property sold at a sheriff’s sale after the expiration of the redemption period and the issuance of the final certificate of sale, where the judgment debtor remains in possession and no rights of third parties are involved.
RULING
Yes. The court affirmed the order directing the sheriff to issue the final deeds of sale and to place the movant in possession. The Supreme Court held that under the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically the form of the deed of sale in section 473, which entitles the purchaser “to have and to hold the purchased property,” the purchaser is entitled to immediate possession upon expiration of the redemption period and issuance of the final certificate. There is no law requiring the purchaser to institute a separate action for possession under these circumstances. The court distinguished prior rulings (which denied possession during the redemption period) because here the redemption period had already expired. Since the judgment debtor was the one in possession and no third-party rights were involved, public policy and legal grounds did not preclude the court from ordering the sheriff to deliver possession in the same proceeding.
AI Generated by Armztrong.