G.R. No. L-4169 December 17, 1951
REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS, recurrente, vs. HONORABLE PATRICIO C. CENIZA, Juez del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Misamis Occidental, y DIOSDADO L. VICADA, Sheriff de la Ciudad de Ozamiz, como Parte Interesada, recurridos.

FACTS

On February 9, 1949, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of Pepito Piamonte in Criminal Case No. 2096 for illegal possession of explosives, wherein he was sentenced to pay a fine of P1,500 and costs. The judgment became final on March 17, 1949. On March 25, a writ of execution for P1,560.60 (fine and costs) was issued. Respondent Sheriff Diosdado L. Vicada levied upon a residential building owned by Piamonte, constructed on Lot No. 1440 registered in the name of Potenciano Lamparas. The sheriff did not register the levy in the Office of the Register of Deeds, reasoning that he levied only the building and not the land. On October 22, 1949, the sheriff sold the building at public auction, with the Republic of the Philippines as the highest bidder. A certificate of sale was issued on March 10, 1950, and presented for registration. Subsequently, the Solicitor General, upon learning of publication expenses, moved to annul the sale, citing Rule 39, Section 14, in relation to Rule 59, Section 7(a), which requires registration of the levy for the sale to be valid. The trial court initially denied the motion but later, on August 5, 1950, granted reconsideration, declared the sale null and void, and ordered a new writ of execution. The sheriff filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the building was personal property and its levy did not require registration. On September 16, 1950, Judge Ceniza issued an order conditioning the validity of the sale on whether the Solicitor General would cause the government to pay the publication expenses; otherwise, the court would revert to its original order upholding the sale. The Republic filed this certiorari petition, alleging the order was contrary to law and an abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the levy and subsequent sale of a building constructed on land owned by another person is valid without the registration of the levy in the Office of the Register of Deeds.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that the building, being permanently attached to the land, is immovable property under Article 334 of the Civil Code. It cannot be removed without deterioration and is not susceptible to manual delivery for the sheriff to store. Therefore, Rule 59, Section 7(b) applies, requiring the sheriff, upon levying on real property, to file a copy of the order, a description of the property, and a notice of attachment with the register of deeds, who must index the attachment. The Court cited Llenares vs. Valdeavellano and Zoreta and Chua Pua Hermanos vs. The Register of Deeds of Batangas, which established that registration of the levy is indispensable for a valid execution sale; a sale without a prior valid levy is null, and the buyer acquires no title. The sheriff’s contention that the building is personal property and that the registration requirement under the Revised Administrative Code does not apply to sheriff’s sales is untenable. The Court also noted that the conditions in the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, are not applicable to a sheriff’s deed conveying property sold on execution. The trial court’s order, which made the validity of the sale contingent on the payment of publication expenses, was arbitrary. The determinative factor for the validity of the sale is the registration of the levy, not the settlement of expenses. The Court revoked the order of September 16, 1950, declared the sale of Piamonte’s building null and void, and directed the trial court to execute its order of August 5, 1950, with costs against the sheriff.