G.R. No. L-9224; January 7, 1915
MATEO MERCADO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIONISIO JAKOSALEM, provincial sheriff of Cebu, and JOSE A. CLARIN, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
On November 28, 1906, plaintiff Mateo Mercado purchased at a sheriff’s auction twenty-three (23) parcels of land owned by Bernardo Gomez, which were sold to satisfy a mortgage debt in favor of Martin Llorente (Civil Case No. 445). The sale was approved by the court, and Mercado took possession on December 15, 1906. Nine of these adjoining parcels were consolidated by Mercado into two larger tracts for agricultural convenience.

Subsequently, in the same mortgage foreclosure case (No. 445), the provincial sheriff, Dionisio Jakosalem, acting on a supplemental writ of execution, levied upon and sold the same nine parcels (now described as two tracts) to defendant Jose A. Clarin on July 19, 1911, for ₱750. Mercado protested the levy and sale, but the sheriff proceeded. After the redemption period expired, Clarin sought possession. Mercado filed an action to declare himself the owner, to annul the second sale, and to enjoin the defendants from disturbing his possession. The trial court ruled in favor of Mercado, declaring the second sale null and void and ordering the cancellation of its registration. The defendants appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the second sale of the same parcels of land by the sheriff to Jose A. Clarin is valid, considering that those parcels had already been previously sold to Mateo Mercado in satisfaction of the same mortgage debt.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The second sale was null and void. Once the properties were sold at public auction to Mercado and the redemption period expired, ownership vested absolutely in him. The lands ceased to be part of the debtor’s estate and could no longer be subject to execution for the same debt. The sheriff’s act of levying upon and selling the same properties a second time was unlawful. The Court upheld Mercado’s ownership and possession, annulled the sale to Clarin, and ordered the cancellation of its registration from the property registry. The counterclaim for damages by Clarin was denied. The decision was limited to the two tracts (comprising the nine original parcels) claimed by Mercado, excluding two other parcels also sold to Clarin but not involved in this action. No costs were awarded.