G.R. No. L-7353; August 26, 1914
ISAAC BORCELIS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE GOLINGCO, ET AL., defendants. VICENTE GOLINGCO, appellant.

FACTS:
On September 21, 1908, Mariano Riosa obtained a judgment against Pedro Floriano. Execution was levied on two parcels of land owned by Floriano. Before the sheriff’s auction, Vicente Golingco intervened, claiming a mortgage on the same lands. The execution creditor, Riosa, posted a bond, and the auction proceeded on December 24, 1908, with Isaac Borcelis as the winning bidder. After the redemption period lapsed, a final certificate of sale was issued to Borcelis and inscribed in the Property Registry of Albay on March 3, 1910.

Subsequently, on April 18, 1910, Golingco, who had also obtained a judgment against Floriano on October 22, 1908, caused an execution to be levied on the same two parcels of land. By this time, the lands were already registered in Borcelis’s name. Borcelis intervened to oppose the sale, but Golingco furnished a bond, and the sheriff proceeded with the auction on May 27, 1910, selling the lands to Golingco himself.

Borcelis filed a complaint seeking: (1) annulment of the second sale; (2) declaration of his ownership and restitution of possession; and (3) indemnity for damages. The trial court ruled in favor of Borcelis, ordering the recovery of the lands and awarding indemnity against Golingco and his bondsmen. Golingco appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the second execution sale of the lands to Vicente Golingco was valid, considering that the ownership had already been transferred to Isaac Borcelis prior to the levy.

RULING:
No, the second execution sale was null and void. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

1. Golingco did not have a valid legal mortgage. The document he presented was a private instrument, not inscribed in the Property Registry. Under Article 1875 of the Civil Code, for a mortgage to be validly constituted, the document creating it must be inscribed in the registry. The uninscribed private document could not create a real right or encumbrance on the land.

3. The lands no longer belonged to the judgment debtor, Floriano, at the time of the second levy and sale. Ownership of the lands had been definitively transferred to Borcelis upon the expiration of the legal redemption period following the first sheriff’s sale on December 24, 1908. By May 27, 1910, Floriano had no remaining interest in the properties that could be subject to execution for Golingco’s judgment.

Therefore, the sheriff’s sale to Golingco was annulled. The Court upheld Borcelis’s ownership and affirmed the award of indemnity and costs against appellant Golingco and his bondsmen.