G.R. No. L-34657. October 23, 1979.
ERLINDA RAVANERA and OSCAR RAVANERA, petitioners, vs. FELIPE I. IMPERIAL, respondent.

FACTS

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres filed an action for rescission of contract and recovery of possession against Felipe Imperial. The trial court decided in favor of the Archbishop. Execution pending appeal was granted, conditioned on Imperial posting a supersedeas bond and depositing monthly rentals, which he failed to do. Consequently, a writ of execution was issued. The sheriff initially withheld enforcement due to proposed amicable settlement, but upon its failure, an alias writ was issued. Properties of Imperial were levied and sold at public auction, with Erlinda Ravanera as the highest bidder. Imperial redeemed some properties but failed to redeem others, leading to the issuance of a definite deed of sale to Ravanera.
Ravanera filed a motion for a writ of possession. Imperial opposed, contending the notice of levy was void and Ravanera had no personality in the case. The trial court granted the writ. Imperial appealed to the Court of Appeals, which set aside the trial court’s orders, prompting Ravanera’s petition to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the execution proceedings, including the levy and auction sale, were valid and whether a writ of possession was properly issued to the purchaser at the execution sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the validity of the execution proceedings and the issuance of the writ of possession. The Court ruled that the trial court retained jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal, and Imperial’s failure to comply with the conditions to stay execution rendered the writ of execution valid. The alias writ of execution was also validly issued by the Clerk of Court under Rule 136 of the Revised Rules of Court, as the original writ was returned unenforced due to the failed settlement.
Crucially, the Court applied the doctrine of estoppel against Imperial. He failed to seasonably object to the notice of levy and sale before the auction, and his subsequent acts—redeeming some properties, failing to pay arrears in taxes, and not redeeming a mortgage on one property during the redemption period—constituted acquiescence and a waiver of his right to challenge the sale’s validity. Having conformed to the proceedings, he could not later impugn them to the detriment of Ravanera, who relied on the regularity of the official acts. The purchaser at an execution sale is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right upon completion of the sale and expiration of the redemption period.