GR L 5292; (May, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5292; May 13, 1953
Pelagia Arante, etc., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. Arcadio Rosel, et al., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
This originated from a forcible entry and detainer case where the Court of First Instance of Leyte affirmed a judgment from the justice of the peace court, ordering the defendants’ ejectment. After a writ of execution, the sheriff placed the plaintiffs in possession. To satisfy the award of damages and costs, the sheriff seized another piece of land owned by defendant Esteban Rosel (Tax Declaration No. 5467). Notice of the public auction sale was published in The Midweek Reporter on September 14, 21, and 28, 1949, and posted in the municipality of Leyte and in Tacloban. The sale took place in Tacloban on September 30, 1949, with plaintiff Pelagia Arante as the highest bidder at P352.10. After no redemption, the sheriff executed a certificate of final sale on October 10, 1950. On January 10, 1951, Esteban Rosel filed a “Petition for relief” to set aside the sheriff’s proceedings, alleging irregularities: (a) insufficient posting of notices in three public places in Leyte and Tacloban, and (b) inadequate publication in a newspaper, given the property’s assessed value of P1,010. The district judge initially annulled the sale on March 13, 1951. Upon the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, a different judge revoked the annulment, finding adequate notice and ruling the petition for relief under Rule 38 was improper, as relief was sought from sheriff’s acts, not a court order, and because the defendants had already filed a separate civil action (Civil Case No. 5760) on November 14, 1950, against the plaintiffs and the sheriff seeking annulment of the sale, restoration of property, and damages.
ISSUE
Whether the trial judge correctly denied Esteban Rosel’s petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
Yes, the trial judge correctly denied the petition for relief. The Supreme Court affirmed the order, holding that the relief under Rule 38 is exceptional and allowed only where there is no other available remedy. It was established that even before filing the petition for relief, the Rosels had already commenced a separate civil action (Civil Case No. 5760) seeking annulment of the auction sale and other remedies based on allegations of illegality and collusion. Since this civil action provided another adequate remedy, the trial judge properly refused to grant relief under Rule 38. The appeal was found unmeritorious.