GR L 21011; (August, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21011; August 30, 1967
ISABEL OCAMPO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. IGNACIO DOMALANTA and PONCIANO MARTINEZ, in his capacity as Provincial Sheriff of Cavite, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
A judgment was rendered in a real estate and chattel mortgage foreclosure case (Civil Case 45778) ordering appellant Isabel Ocampo to pay appellee Ignacio Domalanta a sum of money. Upon failure to pay, the mortgaged land was sold at public auction to Domalanta as the highest bidder. Domalanta moved to confirm the sale. Appellant Ocampo opposed the confirmation, alleging she was not properly notified of the foreclosure sale and that the sale price was unconscionably low. The court, finding these allegations unsubstantiated by evidence and the opposition unverified, issued an order on June 2, 1962, confirming the sheriff’s sale. This order became final as no appeal was taken. Subsequently, appellant Ocampo filed a separate action (Civil Case N-496) to annul the sheriff’s sale, raising the identical grounds of lack of notice and inadequacy of price. Appellee Domalanta moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice.
ISSUE
Is a court order confirming a sheriff’s sale upon a judgment in a real estate foreclosure case a bar to a subsequent action by the judgment debtor to annul the sale upon grounds which were raised in said foreclosure proceedings?
RULING
Yes. The order of confirmation of the sheriff’s sale is a final order in judicial foreclosure proceedings. It cuts off all interests of the mortgagor in the property and vests them in the purchaser, retroacting to the date of sale. The grounds for annulment (lack of notice and inadequacy of price) were the very issues raised and rejected in the opposition to the confirmation in the first case. The first suit was an action quasi in rem. Under the Rules of Court (specifically Section 49, paragraphs (b) and (c) of Rule 39), the confirmation order is conclusive between the parties not only as to matters directly adjudged but also as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto (paragraph (b)), or is deemed to have been adjudged as it was actually and necessarily included in the former judgment (paragraph (c)). Therefore, the subsequent action for annulment is barred by the conclusiveness of judgment. The trial court’s orders dismissing the case are affirmed.