G.R. No. L-15435; April 27, 1960
VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JUDGE GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Victoriano L. Reyes, et al., filed a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the order of respondent Judge Gustavo Victoriano dated August 9, 1958, which directed the issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 22757, and all subsequent proceedings, including the issuance of a new title. The Supreme Court, in a prior decision (G.R. No. L-12081) dated May 30, 1958, affirmed the trial court’s judgment ordering that if the defendants (petitioners) failed to satisfy the judgment within ninety (90) days from the date the decision became final, the sheriff would sell the mortgaged property at public auction. Petitioners received a copy of this decision on June 9, 1958. The record was remanded to the court of origin on July 22, 1958. On August 9, 1958, respondent judge issued the order for execution. The sheriff sold the property at public auction on September 29, 1958. The sale was confirmed by the court on November 11, 1958. On January 6, 1959, the mortgage creditors (respondents) filed a petition for a writ of possession. Petitioners opposed this, arguing the auction sale and related proceedings were void because the 90-day period from the finality of the decision had not yet expired when the motion for execution was filed and the sale was conducted, contrary to Rule 70, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. The trial court denied their opposition and motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of execution and confirming the sheriff’s sale, thereby depriving petitioners of the 90-day period granted in the decision to pay their obligation before foreclosure.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that while the motion for writ of execution filed on July 29, 1958, was premature as the 90-day period from the finality of the decision (which became final on June 24, 1958) had not yet expired, the actual auction sale took place on September 29, 1958. This date was 97 days after the decision became final, which was beyond the required 90-day period. The Court found petitioners guilty of laches, if not estoppel, for failing to timely oppose the premature petition for execution, the notice of auction sale, and the petition to confirm the sale. They only raised objections when respondents sought a writ of possession. Furthermore, there was no showing petitioners attempted to pay their obligation during the intervening period. The premature filing of the execution motion was thus deemed inconsequential since the sale itself occurred after the lapse of the 90-day period prescribed by the rule and the decision. The proceedings were in accordance with Rule 70, Sections 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.