G.R. No. L-15233; October 25, 1960
JUAN L. CLEMENTE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and H.E. HEACOCK CO., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Juan L. Clemente appeals by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal confirming the sale at public auction of his mortgaged properties. The judgment creditor, respondent H.E. Heacock Company, obtained a final judgment against Clemente for a sum of money. After the judgment became final, a writ of execution was issued, and the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal sold Clemente’s three parcels of land at public auction to H.E. Heacock Co. as the highest bidder. On June 27, 1956, H.E. Heacock Co. filed a motion for confirmation of the sale, set for hearing on June 30, 1956. At that hearing, Clemente, through counsel, requested and was granted 7 days to file a written opposition, which he submitted on July 6, 1956. In his opposition, Clemente argued that confirmation would be contrary to Article 1619 of the Civil Code and deprive him of his right to redeem, and alleged collusion between H.E. Heacock Co. and a second mortgagee. He also stated the grounds were “self-explanatory” and needed no argument. The trial court, on September 17, 1956, issued an order confirming the sale after “hearing and consideration” of the motion and opposition. Clemente’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders, finding no proof of collusion and noting Clemente failed to offer evidence during the hearing on confirmation. Clemente then filed this petition, contending he was not given a hearing on the merits of his opposition.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court denied petitioner Juan L. Clemente due process by not conducting a hearing on the merits of his opposition to the confirmation of the auction sale.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The records revealed that a hearing on the motion for confirmation was actually held on June 30, 1956. At that hearing, the trial court heard Clemente’s oral objections and granted his request for time to file a written opposition. After filing his written opposition, Clemente had no reason to expect another hearing, especially since he never requested one and had expressly waived argument by stating his grounds were “self-explanatory.” The trial court properly considered the motion and opposition submitted for decision. The order of confirmation itself stated it was issued after “hearing and consideration.” The Court of Appeals also noted the record failed to show Clemente attempted to offer evidence during the hearing held on the confirmation. A letter from the Clerk of Court, cited by Clemente, referred only to hearings on later motions (for reconsideration and writ of possession) and not to the hearing on the original motion for confirmation. Therefore, Clemente was not deprived of a hearing or due process.