G.R. No. 780 ; November 16, 1945
MANUEL RIVERA RAMIREZ, demandante-apelante, vs. EL SHERIFF PROVINCIAL DE PAMPANGA Y OTROS, demandados-apelados. (Consolidated with: JUANA DE LEON Y VIOLA, solicitante, vs. DOMINGO B. CHONG Y OTRO, mocionantes-apelantes. MANUEL RIVERA RAMIREZ, opositor-apelante.)

FACTS

The plaintiff, Manuel Rivera Ramirez, filed a civil case seeking to be declared the absolute and exclusive owner of Lot 5-B and to have the public auction sale of said lot and the corresponding Certificate of Transfer of Title No. 11751 declared null and void. The properties in question, parcels 3 and 5, were originally registered under Certificate of Original Title No. 121 in the names of spouses Leon F. Rustia and Juana de Leon since July 16, 1916. On June 18, 1926, Ramirez purchased a portion of parcel 5 (Lot 5-B) from these spouses for P4,000 through a notarized deed, but this sale was not registered due to an existing encumbrance on another parcel and the pending subdivision of parcel 5. Another portion of parcel 5 (Lot 5-A) was sold to spouses Espiridion de la Cruz and Estanislao Almazar on June 30, 1924. A subdivision plan (Exhibit C) approved on February 7, 1929, delineated Lot 5-A (sold to De la Cruz and Almazar) and Lot 5-B (sold to Ramirez). An annotation on the back of Title No. 121, dated April 15, 1930, confirmed this subdivision and the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4164 for Lot 5-A, leaving Lot 5-B uncancelled.
On September 17, 1934, pursuant to a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 4853, the sheriff levied upon parcel 3 and Lot 5-B under Title No. 121. The sheriff sold Lot 5-B at public auction on October 20, 1934, with Mariano Chong Tiaopoc as the winning bidder. A final certificate of sale was issued to him on October 20, 1935. Upon Tiaopoc’s motion in Land Registration Case No. 4892, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga ordered on October 25, 1938, the cancellation of Title No. 121 regarding Lot 5-B and the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11751 in the name of Domingo B. Chong (Tiaopoc’s son). Ramirez filed a motion for reconsideration on April 17, 1939. The lower court, in its decision dated May 26, 1943, declared Domingo B. Chong and Faustina de Guzman the absolute owners of Lot 5-B and denied Ramirez’s motion. It also ruled that no damages were warranted. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

The pivotal issue for the resolution of the case was how the sheriff obtained the technical description of Lot 5-B before levying upon it and issuing the corresponding notice of sale.

RULING

The Court found the testimony of the sheriff more credible. The sheriff testified that the technical description of Lot 5-B was provided to him by one of the two lawyers of Mariano Chong Tiaopoc, either Atty. Ejercito or Atty. Natividad. Atty. Ejercito, testifying for Tiaopoc, denied providing the description. However, the Court noted that it was the duty of the judgment creditor (Tiaopoc) or his lawyer, not the sheriff, to furnish such a description. The Court gave more weight to the sheriff’s testimony.
Crucially, the Court found that the technical description, together with the subdivision plan (Exhibit C), had to be on file with the Registrar of Titles for the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4164 for Lot 5-A on April 15, 1930. This plan clearly indicated that Lot 5-B belonged to “MANUEL RIVERA.” Therefore, the lawyer for Tiaopoc who provided the description to the sheriff must have seen this plan and the notation of Ramirez’s ownership. His denial of providing the description reinforced the conclusion that he had seen the plan and wished to conceal his knowledge of Ramirez’s claim.
Furthermore, Mariano Chong Tiaopoc himself admitted in a sworn motion dated October 8, 1938, that he never had an interest in possessing agricultural lands and did not intend to acquire the properties for himself but for his son Domingo B. Chong.
Based on these findings, the Court implied that the auction sale and subsequent title issuance were vitiated because the judgment creditor’s agent had knowledge of a prior, unregistered claim (Ramirez’s purchase) at the time of the execution proceedings. The separate opinions of Justices Moran and Hilado focus on the validity of the proceedings under the Japanese-sponsored government, but the main decision rests on the factual determination of how the technical description was obtained and the knowledge imputed to Tiaopoc’s counsel.