Bobis vs. Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte, 121 SCRA 28, March 18, 1983

1/20/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 121
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bobis vs. Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte
*
No. L-29838. March 18, 1983.
FERMIN BOBIS and EMILIA GUADALUPE, plaintiffs-

appellants, vs. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF
CAMARINES NORTE and ZOSIMO RIVERA, defendants-
appellees.
Judgment; Execution; A writ of execution cannot be issued

against a person not a party to the compromise agreement which is
sought to be enforced.—As will be seen, only Rufina Camino and
Pastor Eco were adjudged to pay Alfonso Ortega the amount of
P140.00 on February 28, 1951. Although they were included as
party defendants, the spouses Fermin Bobis and Emilia
Guadalupe were not ordered to pay Alfonso Ortega. Obviously,
they were absolved
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
29
VOL. 121, MARCH 18, 1983 29
from liability. Accordingly, as to them, there was nothing to

execute since they have been absolved from liability. When,
therefore, the lower court, in issuing the writ of execution of the
judgment, commanded the Provincial Sheriff that the goods and
chattels of the defendants Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco, Emilia
Guadalupe and Fermin Bobis be caused to be made the sum of
P140.00 thereby making the spouses Fermin Bobis and Emilia
Guadalupe equally liable for the judgment debt of the spouses
Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco, adding to the judgment sought to
be executed a new relief, it acted in excess of jurisdiction, if not
abuse of authority. As the late Chief Justice Moran says in his
Comments on the Rules of Court, “The writ of execution must
conform to the judgment which is to be executed, as it may not
vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. Nor may it go
beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed. Where
the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it
life and exceeds it, it has pro tanto no validity. To maintain
otherwise would be to ignore the constitutional provision against
depriving a person of his property without due process of law.”
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001771e071293e502716f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
Same; Same; Same.—Besides, the judgment rendered in Civil

Case No. 273 was based upon a compromise agreement of the
parties. In the case of Yboleon vs. Sison, this Court ruled that “a
judge or court, which sets aside a judgment rendered upon
consent of the parties and based on a compromise entered into by
them, which is converted into such judgment, cannot amend or set
it aside without the consent of said parties, or without first having
declared in an incidental preliminary hearing that such
compromise is vitiated by any of the grounds for nullity
enumerated in Article 1817 (now Art. 2038) of the Civil Code.”
Since the modification and amendment of the judgment was made
unilaterally in the writ of execution, without any preliminary
hearing, it was unjustified.
Same; Same; A purchaser at an execution sale acquires

nothing if the judgment debtor has already transferred the
property executed prior to the levy thereto.—Besides, Section 35,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that a purchaser of real
property at an execution sale “shall be substituted to and acquire
all the right, title, interest, and claim of the judgment debtor to
the property as of the time of the levy.” It follows that if at that
time the judgment debtor had no more right to, or interest in, the
property because he had already sold it to another, then the
purchaser acquires nothing. Such appears to be the case here for
it is not disputed that before the execution sale, and even before
the levy on execution, or the rendition of the judg-
30
ment in Civil Case No. 273, the judgment debtors Rufina Camino
and Pastor Eco had already deeded the property to Fermin Bobis
and Emilia Guadalupe and a new certificate of title was issued in
the names of the vendees.
Sales; Contract; Fraud is not presumed in sale of property by

a judgment debtor.—The rule, however, is that fraud is not
presumed. As fraud is criminal in nature, it must be proved by
clear preponderance of evidence. In order that a contract may be
rescinded as in fraud of creditors, it is essential that it be shown
that both contracting parties have acted maliciously and with
fraud and for the purpose of prejudicing said creditors, and that
the latter are deprived by the transaction of all means by which
they may effect collection of their claims. All these circumstances
must concur in a given case. The presence of only one of them is
not enough. In this particular case, there is no evidence that the
spouses Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco connived with the spouses
Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe to defraud Alfonso Ortega.
Nor is there evidence to show that the sale of the land to Fermin
Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe tended to deprive Alfonso Ortega of
means to collect his claim from the spouses Rufina Camino and
Pastor Eco. As a matter of fact, no oral or documentary evidence
was presented by the parties, and the trial court merely assumed
that the sale to Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe was
fraudulent because of the inadequacy of the price, and that the
sale was executed during the pendency of Civil Case No. 273.
While these circumstances may be considered badges of fraud, the

sale cannot be considered in fraud of creditors in the absence of
proof that the vendors Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco had no
other property except that parcel of land they sold to the spouses
Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe. Besides, Alfonso Ortega
knew of such sale and did nothing to have it annulled as in fraud
of creditors.
Same; Same; Judgment creditor must file cautionary notice

against the certificate of title to protect him against fraudulent
sale.—Nor did he cause a cautionary notice to be inscribed in the
certificate of title to protect his interests. Moreover, the sale was
not fictitious, designed to escape payment of the obligation to
Alfonso Ortega. The tenacity by which Emilia Guadalupe had
clung to her property to the extent of undergoing imprisonment is
indicative of their good faith.
Execution; Judgment; Res judicata; A denial or disapproval of

a third party claim or motion does not constitute res judicata. The
3rd
31
VOL. 121, MARCH 18, 1983 31
party claimant may still file a reivindicatory action.—In his

answer, the defendant Zosimo Rivera claimed that the appellant’s
cause of action is barred by a prior judgment. Apparently, the said
defendant was referring to the denial of the appellant’s motion to
modify the writ of execution filed in Civil Case No. 273. However,
the denial of the appellant’s motion to modify the writ of
execution, which for all purposes was a third party claim, does not
constitute a bar to another action even if no appeal was taken
from the disapproval of the third party claim. A third-party
claimant may file a separate re-invindicatory action against the
execution creditor or the purchaser of the property at the sale at
public auction. He may also file a complaint for damages to be
charged against the bond filed by the judgment creditor in favor of
the sheriff. Such reivindicatory action is reserved to the third-
party claimant by Section 17, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
despite the disapproval of its claim by the court itself. Appeal is
not proper in the case, nor a writ of certiorari or prohibition.
Same; Same; Sheriffs; Damages; A sheriff is not liable for

damages where he merely followed to the letter the terms of a writ
of execution ordering the levy of judgment on a person not party to
the compromise sought to be enforced.—The sheriff did not
wrongfully take the property of the appellant spouses Fermin
Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe to satisfy the judgment debt of
another. The writ of execution specifically ordered him to cause
the goods and chattels of Emilia Guadalupe, Fermin Bobis, Rufina
Camino, and Pastor Eco to be made the sum of P140.00, and the
sheriff merely followed the order. The defect was in the writ of
execution issued by the lower court and not in the levy or in the
sale at public auction. Hence, no fault can be attributed to the
sheriff. Therefore, he cannot be made liable for the damages
incurred by the appellant spouses. Corollarily, no damages can
also be recovered from the buyer of the property at the sale at

public auction.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of First Instance

of Camarines Norte.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Tomas Trinidad for plaintiffs-appellants.
James Pajares for defendants-appellees.
32

CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
Appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Camarines Norte, dismissing the complaint for the
annulment of an execution sale, which was certified to this
Court by the Court of Appeals upon the ground that only
questions of law are involved in the appeal.
The facts are not disputed. It appears that Rufina
Camino and Pastor Eco were the registered owners of a
parcel of land, with an area of 10.7791 hectares, covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-398. The said parcel of
land was cultivated by the spouses Fermin Bobis and
Emilia Guadalupe. On July 25, 1950, one Alfonso Ortega
filed a complaint against Rufina Camino, Pastor Eco,
Emilia Guadalupe, and Fermin Bobis with the Court of
First Instance of Camarines Norte, docketed therein as
Civil Case No. 273, for the recovery of possession of one-
half (1/2) of the cleared and planted portion of the land, or
the payment of the amount of P1,650.00, the value of the
improvements introduced by him on the parcel of land in
question. On August 16, 1950, the parties executed a
compromise agreement whereby they agreed:
“1. The defendants Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco

shall pay the plaintiff the sum of One Hundred
Forty Pesos (P140.00) Philippine Currency, as full
payment for all the improvements (coconuts and
bananas) introduced by the plaintiff in the land in
question, payable on February 28, 1951;
“2. That plaintiff has no other claim against the
defendants except for the improvements;
“3. That hereafter, the plaintiff shall recognize and
respect the absolute and exclusive ownership of the
land in question; and
“4. That plaintiff in consideration of this amicable
settlement renounces his claim for damages.”
On August 26, 1950, Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco sold

the parcel of land to their co-defendants, spouses Fermin
Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe, and TCT No. T-838 was
issued in their names. On January 19, 1951, the parties
submitted the compromise agreement to the court; and on
January 22, 1951, the
33
VOL. 121, MARCH 18, 1983 33

court promulgated a decision, approving the said

compromise agreement.
The defendants Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco,
however, only paid the amount of P50.00 to Alfonso Ortega
when the obligation became due on February 28, 1951. As a
result, a writ of execution was issued on July 18, 1951,
commanding the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte
that the goods and chattels of the defendants Rufina
Camino, Pastor Eco, Emilia Guadalupe, and Fermin Bobis
be caused to be made the sum of P140.00. Consequently,
the Sheriff levied upon the land which Rufina Camino and
Pastor Eco had sold to Fermin Bobis and Emilia
Guadalupe. Upon learning of the levy on execution, Emilia
Guadalupe and Fermin Bobis filed a motion seeking the
modification of the writ of execution to exclude them
therefrom because under the judgment sought to be
executed only the defendants Rufina Camino and Pastor
Eco were obligated to pay the plaintiff Alfonso Ortega. But,
the trial court denied the motion. Subsequently, on
September 3, 1951, the Provincial Sheriff sold the parcel of
land in question at an execution sale to Zosimo Rivera, the
highest bidder.
After the expiration of one year, or on September 17,
1952, with neither Rufina Camino, Pastor Eco, Emilia
Guadalupe, nor Fermin Bobis exercising the right of
redemption, the Provincial Sheriff executed an Officer’s
Deed of Sale of the land in favor of the said Zosimo Rivera.
The Officer’s Deed of Sale was submitted to, and approved
by, the trial court on March 23, 1953.
Thereupon, Zosimo Rivera asked for a writ of possession.
The Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Norte, in his capacity
as ex oficio Register of Deeds of the province, also filed a
motion praying that Emilia Guadalupe be directed to
surrender the owner’s duplicate of TCT No. T-838 so that
the Sheriff’s sale could be annotated therein. The court
granted both motions and directed the issuance of a writ of
possession, and ordered Emilia Guadalupe to surrender the
owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-838 within five (5)
days from notice. Emilia Guadalupe, however, did not
surrender her duplicate copy of the certificate of title and,
instead, filed a motion for the reconsideration of the order.
The motion for reconsideration was
34

denied by the court, but still, Emilia Guadalupe refused to

surrender the owner’s duplicate copy of the certificate of
title. Nor did she vacate the land despite the writ of
possession. As a result, a petition to declare her in
contempt of court was filed. After due hearing, Emilia
Guadalupe was declared guilty of contempt for disobeying a
lawful order and for obstructing the administration of
justice and sentenced to undergo imprisonment until such

time as she complies with the orders of the court.
On March 4, 1960, Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe
filed the instant action against the Provincial Sheriff of
Camarines Norte and Zosimo Rivera with the Court of
First Instance of Camarines Norte, docketed therein as
Civil Case No. 1169, for the annulment of the sheriff’s deed
of sale and for damages, upon the ground that the writ of
execution issued in Civil Case No. 273 was not in
conformity with the judgment rendered therein and
therefore, void and of no legal effect. Upon the filing of the
complaint, the court ordered the release of Emilia
Guadalupe who had been confined in jail for about 8
months.
On June 3, 1964, the trial court rendered a decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:
“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered

(a) dismissing the complaint with costs against the plaintiffs; (b)
declaring the sale executed by Camino and Eco in favor of Emilia
Guadalupe rescinded; (c) declaring the sale executed by defendant
Provincial Sheriff in favor of Zosimo Rivera valid and legal; (d)
declaring said defendant Zosimo Rivera the owner of the land
described in the complaint; and (e) ordering Emilia Guadalupe to
execute 1 a deed of conveyance in favor of defendant Zosimo
Rivera.”
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the

latter court elevated the case to this Court for final
determination for the reason that only questions of law are
involved in the appeal.
The appellants contend that the trial court erred:
“1. In declaring that the sale executed by the

Provincial Sheriff in favor of Zosimo Rivera valid
and legal and that Zosimo
_______________
1 Record on Appeal, p. 29.
35
VOL. 121, MARCH 18, 1983 35

Rivera is now the owner of the land in question;

“2. In dismissing the complaint for annulment of the
sale made by the Provincial Sheriff which is void
from the beginning;
“3. In declaring the sale executed by Camino and Eco
in favor of Emilia Guadalupe rescinded when there
is no action for the same;
“4. In ordering Emilia Guadalupe to execute a deed of
conveyance in favor of defendant Zosimo Rivera
when the property is of the conjugal partnership of
Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe; and
“5. In not granting damages against Zosimo Rivera and
the Provincial Sheriff when the machination to
deprive plaintiffs of their land is very evident in
their actuations not only because of the ridiculously

niggardly price but also because the true plaintiff
(Ortega) was not benefited by the sale.”
We find the appeal impressed with merit. The writ of

execution issued in Civil Case No. 273 is null and void with
respect to the spouses Fermin Bobis and Emilia
Guadalupe; hence, the sale of their property at a
subsequent sale at public auction to the defendant Zosimo
Rivera is, likewise, void and of no legal effect. The
judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 273 decreed:
“1. That defendants Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco

shall pay the plaintiff the sum of One Hundred
Forty Pesos (P140.00) Philippine Currency, as full
payment for all the improvements (coconut
bananas) introduced by the plaintiff in the land in
question, payable on February 28, 1951;
“2. That plaintiff has no other claim against the
defendants except for the improvements;
“3. That hereafter, the plaintiff shall recognize and
respect the absolute and exclusive ownership of the
land in question; and
“4. That plaintiff in consideration of this amicable
settlement renounces his claim for damages.”
As will be seen, only Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco were

adjudged to pay Alfonso Ortega the amount of P140.00 on
February 28, 1951. Although they were included as party
defendants, the spouses Fermin Bobis and Emilia
Guadalupe were not ordered to pay Alfonso Ortega.
Obviously, they were absolved from liability. Accordingly,
as to them, there was nothing to execute since they have
been absolved from liabili-
36

ty. When, therefore, the lower court, in issuing the writ of

execution of the judgment, commanded the Provincial
Sheriff that the goods and chattels of the defendants
Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco, Emilia Guadalupe and
Fermin Bobis be caused to be made the sum of P140.00
whereby making the spouses Fermin Bobis and Emilia
Guadalupe equally liable for the judgment debt of the
spouses Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco, adding to the
judgment sought to be executed a new relief, it acted in
excess of jurisdiction, if not abuse of authority. As the late
Chief Justice Moran says in his Comments on the Rules of
Court, “The writ of execution must conform to the
judgment which is to be executed, as it may not vary the
terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. Nor may it go
beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed.
Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment
which gives it life and exceeds it, it has pro tanto no
validity. To maintain otherwise would be to ignore the
constitutional provision against depriving
2
a person of his
property without due process of law.”
Besides, the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 273

was based upon a compromise 3
agreement of the parties. In
the case of Yboleon vs. Sison, this Court ruled that “a judge
or court, which sets aside a judgment rendered upon
consent of the parties and based on a compromise entered
into by them, which is converted into such judgment,
cannot amend or set it aside without the consent of said
parties, or without first having declared in an incidental
preliminary hearing that such compromise is vitiated by
any of the grounds for nullity enumerated in Article 1817
(now Art. 2038) of the Civil Code.” Since the modification
and amendment of the judgment was made unilaterally in
the writ of execution, without any preliminary hearing, it
was unjustified.
It results that the writ of execution is null and void and
of no legal effect with respect to the spouses Fermin Bobis
and Emilia Guadalupe. The annulment of the writ of
execution carries with it the annulment of the sale made by
the sheriff pursuant to the said writ, as well as the order of
the court approv-
_______________
2 Vol. I, 1952 Ed. p. 809.

3 59 Phil. 281.
37
VOL. 121, MARCH 18, 1983 37

ing the sale.

4
The limbs cannot survive after the trunk has
perished.
Since the right of Zosimo Rivera over the land in
question is derived from a void execution sale, he acquired
no title therein.
Besides, Section 35, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
provides that a purchaser of real property at an execution
sale “shall be substituted to and acquire all the right, title,
interest, and claim of the judgment debtor to the property
as of the time of the levy.” It follows that if at that time the
judgment debtor had no more right to, or interest in, the
property because he had already sold it to another, then
the purchaser acquires nothing. Such appears to be the
case here for it is not disputed that before the execution
sale, and even before the levy on execution, or the rendition
of the judgment in Civil Case No. 273, the judgment
debtors Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco had already deeded
the property to Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe and a
new certificate of title was issued in the names of the
vendees.
In dismissing the complaint filed in the instant case, the
trial court found that the sale of the land to Fermin Bobis
and Emilia Guadalupe was tainted with fraud since the
said sale was made during the pendency of Civil Case No.
273, and that the price was inadequate.
The rule, however, is that fraud is not presumed. As
fraud is criminal in nature, 5
it must be proved by clear
preponderance of evidence. In order that a contract may be
rescinded as in fraud of creditors, it is essential that it be
shown that both contracting parties have acted maliciously

and with fraud and for the purpose of prejudicing said
creditors, and that the latter are deprived by the
transaction of all means by which they may effect collection
of their claims. All these circumstances must concur in a6
given case. The presence of only one of them is not enough.
In this particular case, there is no evidence that the
spouses Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco connived with the
spouses Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe to defraud
Alfon-
_______________
4 Garchitorena vs. Sotelo, 74 Phil. 25.

5 37 C.J.S. 393.
6 See Solis vs. Chua Pua Hnos and Ilustre, 50 Phil. 636.
38

so Ortega. Nor is there evidence to show that the sale of the

land to Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe tended to
deprive Alfonso Ortega of means to collect his claim from
the spouses Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco. As a matter of
fact, no oral or documentary evidence was presented by the
parties, and the trial court merely assumed that the sale to
Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe was fraudulent
because of the inadequacy of the price, and that the sale
was executed during the pendency of Civil Case No. 273.
While 7 these circumstances may be considered badges of
fraud, the sale cannot be considered in fraud of creditors in
the absence of proof that the vendors Rufina Camino and
Pastor Eco, had no other property except that parcel of land
they sold to the spouses Fermin Bobis and Emilia
Guadalupe. Besides, Alfonso Ortega knew of such sale and
did nothing to have it annulled as in fraud of creditors.
Now did he cause a cautionary notice to be inscribed in the
certificate of title to protect his interests. Moreover, the
sale was not fictitious, designed to escape payment of the
obligation to Alfonso Ortega. The tenacity by which Emilia
Guadalupe had clung to her property to the extent of
undergoing imprisonment is indicative of their good faith.
In his answer, the defendant Zosimo Rivera claimed that
the appellant’s cause of action is barred by a prior
judgment. Apparently, the said defendant was referring to
the denial of the appellant’s motion to modify the writ of
execution filed in Civil Case No. 273, However, the denial
of the appellant’s motion to modify the writ of execution,
which for all purposes was a third party claim, does not
constitute a bar to another action even if no appeal was 8
taken from the disapproval of the third party claim. A
third-party claimant may file a separate reinvindicatory
action against the execution creditor or the purchaser of
the property at the sale at public auction. He may also file
a complaint for damages to be charged against the bond
filed by the judgment creditor in favor of the sheriff. Such
reinvindicatory action is reserved to the third-party
claimant by Section 17, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court

despite the disapproval
_______________
7 Oria vs. McMicking, 21 Phil. 243.

8 Queblar vs. Barduno, 67 Phil. 316.
39
VOL. 121, MARCH 18, 1983 39

9
of its10claim by the court itself. Appeal is not
11
proper in the
case, nor a writ of certiorari or prohibition.
With respect to the claim of the appellants for damages,
it is the rule that when the property of one person is taken
by the sheriff upon an execution against another person,
the sheriff is liable as any private person would be for
wrongly taking property of another. But, such does not
obtain in the present case. The sheriff did not wrongfully
take the property of the appellant spouses Fermin Bobis
and Emilia Guadalupe to satisfy the judgment debt of
another. The writ of execution specifically ordered him to
cause the goods and chattels of Emilia Guadalupe, Fermin
Bobis, Rufina Camino, and Pastor Eco to be made the sum
of P140.00, and the sheriff merely followed the order. The
defect was in the writ of execution issued by the lower
court and not in the levy or in the sale at public auction.
Hence, no fault can be attributed to the sheriff. Therefore,
he cannot be made liable for the damages incurred by the
appellant spouses. Corollarily, no damages can also be
recovered from the buyer of the property at the sale at
public auction.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be,
as it is hereby, SET ASIDE and another one entered,
declaring the writ of execution, dated July 18, 1951, issued
in Civil Case No. 273 of the Court of First Instance of
Camarines Norte, entitled, “Alfonso Ortega, plaintiff,
versus Rufina Camino, et al., defendants,” the sale made by
the sheriff pursuant to said writ, as well as the order of the
court approving said sale, null and void and of no legal
effect with respect to the spouses Fermin Bobis and Emilia
Guadalupe. Without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar (Chairman), Guerrero, Abad Santos, De

Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., on leave.
_______________
9 Planas vs. Madrigal, 94 Phil. 754; Potenciano vs. Dineros, 97 Phil.

196.
10 Queblar vs. Barduno, supra.
11 Lara vs. Bayona, G.R. No. L-7920, May 10, 1955.
40
People vs. Regulacion
Judgment set aside.
Notes.—An alias writ of execution cannot legally be

issued against respondents-lessees who are not parties to
the case. (Asuncion vs. Plan, 103 SCRA 181.)
A writ of execution which varies the terms prescribed in
the judgment of the appellate court is null and void.
(Malacora vs. Court of Appeals, 117 SCRA 435.)
Ordering that the execution of a money claim in favor of
the government be filed in the special intestate estate
proceedings in the CFI is improper. (Gonzales vs. Court of
Tax Appeals, 101 SCRA 633.)
Issuance of certificate of satisfaction of judgment is
proper even if payment of judgment obligation was in cash
and in check. Refusal of judge to issue certificate of
satisfaction constitutes grave abuse of discretion. (New
Pacific Timber & Supply Co., Inc. vs. Seneris, 101 SCRA
686.)
The pendency of a legal redemption case filed by the co-
owner against the mortgagee-vendee a retro cannot deter
the execution of the judgment in the case filed by the latter
against the other co-owner who sold his share. (Codilla vs.
Arcuino, 97 SCRA 351.)
——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Bobis vs. Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte, 121 SCRA 28, March 18, 1983

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bobis vs. Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte, 121 SCRA 28, March 18, 1983

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bobis vs. Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte, 121 SCRA 28, March 18, 1983

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/20/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 121

28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

FERMIN BOBIS and EMILIA GUADALUPE, plaintiffs-

Judgment; Execution; A writ of execution cannot be issued

VOL. 121, MARCH 18, 1983 29

Bobis vs. Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte

from liability. Accordingly, as to them, there was nothing to

Same; Same; Same.—Besides, the judgment rendered in Civil

Same; Same; A purchaser at an execution sale acquires

30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bobis vs. Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte

Sales; Contract; Fraud is not presumed in sale of property by

While these circumstances may be considered badges of fraud, the

Same; Same; Judgment creditor must file cautionary notice

Execution; Judgment; Res judicata; A denial or disapproval of

VOL. 121, MARCH 18, 1983 31

Bobis vs. Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte

party claimant may still file a reivindicatory action.—In his

Same; Same; Sheriffs; Damages; A sheriff is not liable for

also be recovered from the buyer of the property at the sale at

APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of First Instance

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

CONCEPCION, JR., J.:

Appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of

“1. The defendants Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco

On August 26, 1950, Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco sold

VOL. 121, MARCH 18, 1983 33

court promulgated a decision, approving the said

34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

denied by the court, but still, Emilia Guadalupe refused to

justice and sentenced to undergo imprisonment until such

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the

“1. In declaring that the sale executed by the

1 Record on Appeal, p. 29.

VOL. 121, MARCH 18, 1983 35

Rivera is now the owner of the land in question;

their actuations not only because of the ridiculously

We find the appeal impressed with merit. The writ of

“1. That defendants Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco

As will be seen, only Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco were

36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ty. When, therefore, the lower court, in issuing the writ of

Besides, the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 273

2 Vol. I, 1952 Ed. p. 809.

VOL. 121, MARCH 18, 1983 37

ing the sale.

shown that both contracting parties have acted maliciously

4 Garchitorena vs. Sotelo, 74 Phil. 25.

38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

so Ortega. Nor is there evidence to show that the sale of the

claimant by Section 17, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court

7 Oria vs. McMicking, 21 Phil. 243.

VOL. 121, MARCH 18, 1983 39

Makasiar (Chairman), Guerrero, Abad Santos, De

9 Planas vs. Madrigal, 94 Phil. 754; Potenciano vs. Dineros, 97 Phil.

40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Regulacion