G.R. No. L-47717 May 2, 1988
IGNACIO PASCUA and URSULA DUGAY, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF SEGUNDO SIMEON, et al., respondents.

FACTS

A 1969 judgment ordered petitioners and other defendants to pay P19,720.00 to the heirs of Segundo Simeon. The defendants’ appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief. To satisfy the judgment debt, twenty parcels of land owned by the defendants were levied upon and sold at public auction, with the respondents as the highest bidders. After the redemption period lapsed, the sheriff issued a Certificate of Absolute Sale in 1972. The trial court issued a writ of possession in 1973, but the judgment debtors, including petitioners, refused to vacate the properties.
Respondents filed a motion to declare the defendants in contempt. In an order dated January 13, 1978, the trial court found petitioners liable for contempt for refusing to obey the writ but, tempering justice with mercy, imposed no penalty. Instead, it issued an alias writ of possession and warned that refusal to obey this new writ would result in their being declared in contempt and jailed. Petitioners sought Supreme Court intervention to restrain the enforcement of this order and to compel respondents to accept payment of the original judgment debt instead of taking possession of the lands.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the trial court’s order finding petitioners in contempt and threatening future contempt was valid, and (2) whether petitioners could compel the respondents to accept monetary payment instead of enforcing their right to possession from the execution sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It affirmed the order only insofar as it directed the issuance of an alias writ of possession but nullified the contempt findings. The Court clarified that a writ of possession is directed to the sheriff, not the judgment debtor. Therefore, a debtor’s mere refusal to vacate does not constitute contempt under Rule 71, Section 3(b) for disobedience of a court order. The proper remedy for the sheriff is to physically dispossess the occupants. Contempt would only lie if, after being dispossessed, the debtor re-enters or disturbs the purchaser’s possession.
The Court also voided the conditional part of the order threatening future contempt as a “conditional judgment,” which is null and void. Regarding the second plea, the Court held it could not order respondents to accept the original debt amount in lieu of possession. The execution sale had long been finalized, and the respondents’ right to a conveyance was absolute after the redemption period. The Court found no basis to set aside the sale for gross inadequacy of price, as the alleged increase in value years later did not shock the conscience, especially since petitioners had enjoyed the property’s fruits throughout. The alias writ of possession was ordered to be issued and enforced.