Sei sulla pagina 1di 18

VOL.

411,SEPTEMBER23,2003
Sorianovs.Galit
G.R.No.156295.September23,2003.
MARCELOR.SORIANO,petitioner,vs.SPOUSESRICARDO
andROSALINAGALIT,respondents.
*

Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Procedural Rules and Technicalities;


Whileitisarulethatthosewhoseektoavailoftheproceduralremedies
providedbytherulesmustadheretotherequirementsthereof,failingwhich
therighttodosoislost,itis,however,equallysettledthattheRulesof
Court seek to eliminate undue reliance on technical rules and to make
litigationasinexpensiveaspracticableandasconvenientascanbedone.
Concededly,thosewhoseektoavailoftheproceduralremediesprovidedby
therulesmustadheretotherequirementsthereof,failingwhichtherightto
dosoislost.Itis,however,equallysettledthattheRulesofCourtseekto
eliminate undue reliance on technical rules and to make litigation as
inexpensive as practicable and as convenient as can be done. This is in
accordancewiththeprimarypurposeofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure
asprovidedinRule1,Section6,whichreads:Section6. Construction.
Theserulesshallbeliberallyconstruedinordertopromotetheirobjectiveof
securingajust,speedyandinexpensivedeterminationofeveryactionand
proceeding.Therulesofprocedurearenottobeappliedinaveryrigid,
technical sense and are used only to help secure substantial justice. If a
technicalandrigidenforcementoftherulesismade,theiraimwouldbe
defeated.Theyshouldbeliberallyconstruedsothatlitigantscanhaveample
opportunitytoprovetheirclaimsandthuspreventadenialofjusticedueto
technicalities.
PublicAuctionSales; Certificates ofSale; Evidence; Public Documents;
Whileitistruethatpublicdocumentsbythemselvesmaybeadequateto
establishthepresumptionoftheirvalidity,theirprobativeweight,however,
mustbeevaluatednotinisolationbutinconjunctionwithotherevidence
adducedbythepartiesinthecontroversy,muchmoresowherethecontents
of a copy thereof subsequently registered for documentation purposes is
beingcontested;Whileapublicdocumentlikeanotarizeddeedofsaleis
vestedwiththepresumptionofregularity,thisisnotaguaranteeofthe
validityofitscontents.Thereareactuallytwo(2)copiesoftheCertificate
of Sale on Execution of Real Properties issued on February 4, 1999
involved,namely:(a)copywhichisonfilewiththedeputysheriff;and(b)

copyregisteredwiththeRegistryofDeeds.Theobjectofscrutiny,however,
isnotthecopyoftheCertificateofSaleonExecutionofRealProperties
issued by the deputy sheriff on February 4, 1999, but the copy thereof
subsequentlyregisteredbypetitionerwiththeRegistryofDeedsonApril
_______________
*FIRSTDIVISION.
632

632

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSAN
Sorianovs.Galit
23,1999,whichincludedanentryonthe dorsalportion ofthefirstpage
thereofdescribingaparceloflandcoveredbyOCTNo.T40785notfound
intheCertificateofSaleofRealPropertiesonfilewiththesheriff.True,
public documents by themselves may be adequate to establish the
presumption of their validity. However, their probative weight must be
evaluatednotinisolationbutinconjunctionwithotherevidenceadducedby
thepartiesinthecontroversy,muchmoresointhiscasewherethecontents
of a copy thereof subsequently registered for documentation purposes is
beingcontested.Noreasonhasbeenofferedhowandwhythequestioned
entrywas subsequentlyintercalated inthecopyof thecertificateof sale
subsequentlyregisteredwiththeRegistryofDeeds.Absentanysatisfactory
explanationastowhysaidentrywasbelatedlyinserted,thesurreptitiousness
ofitsinclusioncoupledwiththefurtivemannerofitsintercalationcasts
seriousdoubtontheauthenticityofpetitionerscopyoftheCertificateof
Sale.Thus,ithasbeenheldthatwhileapublicdocumentlikeanotarized
deed of sale is vested with the presumption of regularity, this is not a
guaranteeofthevalidityofitscontents?
Same;Same;TheissuanceofaCertificateofSaleisanendresultofjudicial
foreclosure where statutory requirements are strictly adhered to, where
eventheslightestdeviationstherefromwillinvalidatetheproceedingand
thesale;TheCertificateofSaleisanaccuraterecordofwhatproperties
wereactuallysoldtosatisfythedebt,andthestrictnessintheobservanceof
accuracyandcorrectnessinthedescriptionofthepropertiesrendersthe
enumeration in the certificate exclusive.It must be pointed out in this
regardthattheissuanceofaCertificateofSaleisanendresultofjudicial
foreclosurewherestatutoryrequirementsarestrictlyadheredto;whereeven
theslightestdeviationstherefromwillinvalidatetheproceedingandthesale.

Amongtheserequirementsisanexplicitenumerationandcorrectdescription
ofwhatpropertiesaretobesoldstatedinthenotice.Thestringenceinthe
observance of these requirements is such that an incorrect title number
togetherwithacorrecttechnicaldescriptionofthepropertytobesoldand
vice versa is deemed a substantial and fatal error which results in the
invalidationofthesale.Thecertificateofsaleisanaccuraterecordofwhat
properties were actually sold to satisfy the debt. The strictness in the
observanceofaccuracyandcorrectnessinthedescriptionoftheproperties
renders the enumeration in the certificate exclusive. Thus, subsequently
includingpropertieswhichhavenotbeenexplicitlymentionedthereinfor
registrationpurposesundersuspiciouscircumstancessmacksoffraud.The
explanationthatthelandonwhichthepropertiessoldisnecessarilyincluded
and,hence,wasbelatedlytypedonthedorsalportionofthecopyofthe
certificate subsequently registered is at best a lame excuse unworthy of
belief.
633

VOL.411,SEPTEMBER23,2003
Sorianovs.Galit
RealEstateMortgages;Whileitistruethatamortgageoflandnecessarily
includes, in the absence of stipulation of the improvements thereon,
buildings,stillabuildingbyitselfmaybemortgagedapartfromthelandon
which it has been built.The foregoing provision of the Civil Code
enumerates land and buildings separately. This can only mean that a
buildingis,byitself,consideredimmovable.Thus,ithasbeenheldthat...
whileitistruethatamortgageoflandnecessarilyincludes,intheabsenceof
stipulationoftheimprovementsthereon,buildings,stillabuildingbyitself
maybemortgagedapartfromthelandonwhichithasbeenbuilt. Such
mortgagewouldbestillarealestatemortgageforthebuildingwouldstillbe
consideredimmovablepropertyevenifdealtwithseparatelyandapartfrom
theland.(emphasisanditalicssupplied)Inthiscase,consideringthatwhat
wassoldbyvirtueofthewritofexecutionissuedbythetrialcourtwas
merelythestorehouseandbodegaconstructedontheparceloflandcovered
byTransferCertificateofTitleNo.T40785,whichbythemselvesarereal
propertiesofrespondentsspouses,thesameshouldberegardedasseparate
anddistinctfromtheconveyanceofthelotonwhichtheystand.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtof
Appeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Cacho&ChuaLawOfficesforpetitioner.
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
PetitionerwasissuedawritofpossessioninCivilCaseNo.6643
forSumofMoneybytheRegionalTrialCourtofBalanga,Bataan,
Branch1.Thewritofpossessionwas,however,nullifiedbythe
CourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.65891 becauseitincludeda
parceloflandwhichwasnotamongthoseexplicitlyenumeratedin
theCertificateofSaleissuedbytheDeputySheriff,butonwhich
standtheimmovablescoveredbythesaidCertificate.Petitioner
contendsthatthesaleoftheseimmovablesnecessarily
encompassesthelandonwhichtheystand.
Dissatisfied,petitionerfiledtheinstantpetitionforreviewon
certiorari.
1

_______________
1EntitledMarceloR.Sorianov.SpousesRicardoL.GalitandRosalinaGalvez.
2 Entitled Spouses Ricardo and Rosalina Galit v. Hon. Benjamin Vianzon,
MarceloSoriano,etal.
634

634

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Sorianovs.Galit
Respondent Ricardo Galit contracted a loan from petitioner
MarceloSoriano,inthetotalsumofP480,000.00,evidencedby
fourpromissorynotesintheamountofP120,000.00eachdated
August 2, 1996; August 15, 1996; September 4, 1996 and
September 14, 1996. This loan was secured by a real estate
mortgageoveraparceloflandcoveredbyOriginalCertificateof
TitleNo.569. Afterhefailedtopayhisobligation,Sorianofileda
complaintforsumofmoneyagainsthimwiththeRegionalTrial
Court of Balanga City, Branch 1, which was docketed as Civil
CaseNo.6643.
Respondents,theSpousesRicardoandRosalinaGalit,failedtofile
their answer. Hence, uponmotion of Marcelo Soriano, the trial
3

court declared the spouses in default and proceeded to receive


evidenceforpetitionerSorianoexparte.
OnJuly7,1997,theRegionalTrialCourtofBalangaCity,Branch
1renderedjudgment infavorofpetitionerSoriano,thedispositive
portionofwhichreads:
9

1
2
3

WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiffand
againstthedefendantorderingthelattertopay:
1.theplaintifftheamountofP350,000.00plus12%interesttobecomputed
fromthedatesofmaturityofthepromissorynotesuntilthesamearefully
paid;
2.theplaintiffP20,000.00,asattorneysfees;and
3.thecostsofsuit.
SOORDERED.
10

Thejudgmentbecamefinalandexecutory.Accordingly,thetrial
courtissuedawritofexecutioninduecourse,byvirtueofwhich,
Deputy Sheriff Renato E. Robles levied on the following real
propertiesoftheGalitspouses:
_______________
3Record,p.16.
4Id.,p.21.
5Id.,p.26.
6Id.,p.32.
7Id.,p.20.
8Id.,p.9.
9Id.,pp.3740.
10Id.,p.40.
635

VOL.411,SEPTEMBER23,2003
Sorianovs.Galit
1.AparceloflandcoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.T
569(HomesteadPatentNo.14692)situatedintheBo.ofTapulac,
Orani,Bataan.BoundedontheSW,alongline12byLotNo.3,
Cad. 145; containing an area of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND
SEVENHUNDREDFIFTYNINE(35,759)SQUAREMETERS,
moreorlessxxx;

2.STORE/HOUSECONSTRUCTEDonLotNo.1103madeof
strongmaterialsG.I.roofingsituatedatCentroI,Orani,Bataan,x
x x containing an area of 30 sq. meters, more or less x x x
(constructedonTCTNo.T40785);
3.BODEGAconstructedonLot1103,madeofstrongmaterials,
G.I.roofing,situatedinCentroI,Orani,Bataan,xxxwithafloor
areaof42.75sq.m.moreorlessxxx.
Atthesaleoftheaboveenumeratedpropertiesatpublicauction
heldonDecember23,1998,petitionerwasthehighestandonly
bidderwithabidpriceofP483,000.00.Accordingly,onFebruary
4, 1999, Deputy Sheriff Robles issued a Certificate of Sale of
ExecutionofRealProperty, whichreads:
11

12

CERTIFICATEOFSALEONEXECUTIONOFREALPROPERTY
TOALLWHOMAYSEETHESEPRESENTS:
GREETINGS:
IHEREBYthat(sic)byvirtueofthewritofexecutiondatedOctober16,
1998, issued in the aboveentitled case by the HON. BENJAMIN T.
VIANZON, ordering the Provincial Sheriff of Bataan or her authorized
DeputySherifftocausetobemade(sic)thesumofP350,000.00plus12%
interesttobecomputedfromthedateofmaturityofthepromissorynotes
until the same are fully paid; P20,000.00 as attorneys fees plus legal
expensesintheimplementationofthewritofexecution,theundersigned
DeputySheriffsoldatpublicauctiononDecember23,1998therightsand
interests of defendants Sps. Ricardo and Rosalina Galit, to the plaintiff
Marcelo Soriano, the highest and only bidder for the amount of FOUR
HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P483,000.00,
PhilippineCurrency),thefollowingrealestatepropertiesmoreparticularly
describedasfollows:
_______________
11Id.,pp.4142.
12Id.
636

636

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Sorianovs.Galit

ORIGINALCERTIFICATEOFTITLENO.T569
A parcel of land (Homestead Patent No. 14692) situated in the Bo. of

Tapulac,Orani,Bataan,xxx.BoundedontheSW.,alongline12byLot
No.3,Cad.145,containinganareaofTHIRTYFIVETHOUSANDSEVEN
HUNDREDFIFTYNINE(35,759)SQUAREMETERS,moreorlessxxx
TAXDEC.NO.PROPERTYINDEXNO.0180900102
STOREHOUSEconstructedonLot1103,madeofstrongmaterialsG.I.
roofingsituatedatCentroI,Orani,Bataanxxxcontaininganareaof30sq.
meters,moreorlessxx(constructedonTCTNo.40785)
TAXDEC.NO.86PROPERTYINDEXNo.0180900102
BODEGAconstructedonLot1103,madeofstrongmaterialsG.I.roofing
situatedinCentroI,Orani,Bataan,xxxwithafloorareaof42.75sq.m.
moreorlessxxx
ITISFURTHERCERTIFIED,thattheaforesaidhighestandlonebidder,
MarceloSoriano,beingtheplaintiffdidnotpaytotheProvincialSheriffof
Bataan the amount of P483,000.00, the sale price of the abovedescribed
property which amount was credited to partial/full satisfaction of the
judgmentembodiedinthewritofexecution.
Theperiodofredemptionoftheabovedescribedrealpropertiestogether
withalltheimprovementsthereonwillexpireOne(1)yearfromandafter
theregistrationofthisCertificateofSalewiththeRegisterofDeeds.
ThisCertificateofSheriffsSaleisissuedtothehighestandlonebidder,
MarceloSoriano,underguaranteesprescribedbylaw.
Balanga,Bataan,February4,1999.

On April 23, 1999, petitioner caused the registration of the


Certificate of Sale on Execution of Real Property with the
RegistryofDeeds.
ThesaidCertificateofSaleregisteredwiththeRegisterofDeeds
includesatthedorsalportionthereofthefollowingentry,notfound
intheCertificateofSaleonfilewithDeputySheriffRenatoE.
Robles:
13

_______________
13Id.,pp.4344.
637

VOL.411,SEPTEMBER23,2003
Sorianovs.Galit
ORIGINALCERTIFICATEOFTITLENO.T40785
Aparcelofland(LotNo.1103oftheCadastralSurveyofOrani),withthe

improvementsthereon,situatedintheMunicipalityofOrani,Boundedon
theNE;byCalleP.Gomez;ontheE.byLotNo.1104;ontheSEbyCalle
Washington; and on the W. by Lot 4102, containing an area of ONE
HUNDREDTHIRTYNINE(139)SQUAREMETERS,moreorless.All
pointsreferredtoareindicatedontheplan;bearingtrue;declination0deg.
40E.,dateofsurvey,February191March1920.

OnFebruary23,2001,tenmonthsfromthetimetheCertificateof
Sale on Execution was registered with the Registry of Deeds,
petitioner moved for the issuance of a writ of possession. He
averredthattheoneyearperiodofredemptionhadelapsedwithout
the respondents having redeemed the properties sold at public
auction;thus,thesaleofsaidpropertieshadalreadybecomefinal.
Healsoarguedthatafterthelapseoftheredemptionperiod,the
titlestothepropertiesshouldbeconsidered,foralllegalintents
andpurposes,inhisnameandfavor.
OnJune4,2001,theRegionalTrialCourtofBalangaCity,Branch
1, granted the motion for issuance of writ of possession.
Subsequently,onJuly18,2001,awritofpossession wasissuedin
petitionersfavorwhichreads:
14

15

16

17

WRITOFPOSSESSION
Mr.RenatoE.Robles
DeputySheriff
RTC,Br.1,BalangaCity
Greetings:
WHEREASonFebruary3,2001,thecounselforplaintifffiledMotionfor
theIssuanceofWritofPossession;
WHEREASonJune4,2001,thiscourtissuedanordergrantingtheissuance
oftheWritofPossession;
WHEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to place the herein plaintiff
MarceloSorianoinpossessionofthepropertyinvolvedinthiscasesituated
(sic)moreparticularlydescribedas:
_______________
14Id.,p.13.
15Id.,p.14.
16Id.,p.12.
17Id.,p.15.

638

638
1
2
3

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Sorianovs.Galit

1.STOREHOUSEconstructedonLotNo.1103situatedatCentro1,Orani,
BataancoveredbyTCT.No.40785;
2.BODEGA constructed on Lot No. 1103 with an area of 42.75 square
metersunderTaxDeclarationNo.86situatedatCentro1,Orani,Bataan;
3.OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.40785withanareaof134squaremeters
knownasLotNo.1103oftheCadastralSurveyofOrani...
againstthemortgagor/formerownersSps.RicardoandRosalinda(sic)Galit,
her (sic) heirs, successors, assigns and all persons claiming rights and
interestsadversetothepetitionerandmakeareturnofthiswriteverythirty
(30)daysfromreceipthereoftogetherwithalltheproceedingsthereonuntil
thesamehasbeenfullysatisfied.
WITNESS THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN T. VIANZON, Presiding
Judge,this18thdayofJuly2001,atBalangaCity.
(Sgd.)GILBERTS.ARGONZA
OIC

RespondentsfiledapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCourtofAp
peals,whichwasdocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.65891,assailingthe
inclusionoftheparceloflandcoveredbyTransferCertificateof
TitleNo.T40785amongthelistofrealpropertiesinthewritof
possession. Respondentsarguedthatsaidpropertywasnotamong
thosesoldonexecutionbyDeputySheriffRenatoE.Roblesas
reflectedintheCertificateofSaleonExecutionofRealProperty.
Inopposition,petitionerprayedforthedismissalofthepetition
becauserespondentspousesfailedtomoveforthereconsideration
oftheassailedorderpriortothefilingofthepetition.Moreover,
theproperremedyagainsttheassailedorderofthetrialcourtisan
appeal,oramotiontoquashthewritofpossession.
On May 13, 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment as
follows:
18

WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisherebyGRANTED.Accordingly,the
writ of possession issued by the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City,
Branch1,on18July2001isdeclaredNULLandVOID.

_______________
18 Entitled SpousesRicardoandRosalinaGalitv.Hon.BenjaminT.Vianzon,
MarceloSoriano,etal.
639

VOL.411,SEPTEMBER23,2003
Sorianovs.Galit
In the event that the questioned writ of possession has already been
implemented,theDeputySheriff oftheRegionalTrialCourtof Balanga
City,Branch1,andprivaterespondentMarceloSorianoareherebyordered
tocausetheredeliveryofTransferCertificateofTitleNo.T40785tothe
petitioners.
SOORDERED.
19

Aggrieved,petitionernowcomestothisCourtmaintainingthat
1.)THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI UNDER
RULE 65 IS NOT THE PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE
REMEDY OF THE RESPONDENTS IN ASSAILING THE
WRIT OF POSSESSION ISSUED BY THE LOWER COURT
BUTTHEREWERESTILLOTHERREMEDIESAVAILABLE
TO THEMANDWHICH WERE NOTRESORTED TOLIKE
THEFILINGOFAMOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONOR
MOTIONTOQUASHOREVENAPPEAL.
2.)THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY
ERREDINDECLARAINGTHECERTIFICATEOFSALEON
EXECUTION OF REAL PROPERTY AS NULL AND VOID
AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE WRIT OF POSSESSION
BECAUSE THE SAME IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT WHICH
ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AND IT
CANNOTBEOVERCOMEBYAMERESTRANGEFEELING
THAT SOMETHING IS AMISS ON ITS SURFACE SIMPLY
BECAUSE THE TYPEWRITTEN WORDS ON THE FRONT
PAGE AND AT THE DORSAL PORTION THEREOF IS
DIFFERENTORTHATITISUNLIKELYFORTHESHERIFF
TO USE THE DORSAL PORTION OF THE FIRST PAGE
BECAUSETHESECONDPAGEISMERELYHALFFILLED

ANDTHENOTATIONONTHEDORSALPORTIONCOULD
STILLBEMADEATTHESECONDPAGE.
Onthefirstground,petitionercontendsthatrespondentswerenot
without remedy before the trial court. He points out that
respondentscouldhavefiledamotionforreconsiderationofthe
OrderdatedJune4,1999,buttheydidnotdoso.Respondents
couldalsohavefiledanappealbutthey,likewise,didnotdoso.
Whenthewritofpossessionwasissued,respondentscouldhave
filedamotiontoquashthewrit.Againtheydidnot.Respondents
cannot now avail of the special civil action for certiorari as a
substitutefor
_______________
19Rollo,p.37;pennedbyAssociateJusticePerlitaJ.TriaTirona;concurredinby
AssociateJusticesBuenaventuraJ.GuerreroandRodrigoV.Cosico.
640

640

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Sorianovs.Galit
theseremedies.Theyshouldsuffertheconsequencesforsleeping
ontheirrights.
Wedisagree.
Concededly,thosewhoseektoavailoftheproceduralremedies
provided by the rules must adhere to the requirements thereof,
failing which the right to do so is lost. It is, however, equally
settledthattheRulesofCourtseektoeliminateunduerelianceon
technicalrulesandtomakelitigationasinexpensiveaspracticable
andasconvenientascanbedone. Thisisinaccordancewiththe
primarypurposeofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureasprovided
inRule1,Section6,whichreads:
20

Section6.Construction.Theserulesshallbeliberallyconstruedinorderto
promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
determinationofeveryactionandproceeding.
21

The rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid,


technicalsenseandareusedonlytohelpsecuresubstantialjustice.
Ifatechnicalandrigidenforcementoftherulesismade,theiraim

would be defeated. They should be liberally construed so that


litigantscanhaveampleopportunitytoprovetheirclaimsandthus
preventadenialofjusticeduetotechnicalities.
Thus,inChinaBankingCorporationv.MembersoftheBoardof
TrusteesofHomeDevelopmentMutualFund, itwasheld:
22

23

24

...whilecertiorariasaremedymaynotbeusedasasubstituteforan
appeal,especiallyforalostappeal,thisruleshouldnotbestrictlyenforced
ifthepetitionisgenuinelymeritorious. Ithasbeensaidthatwheretherigid
application of the rules would frustrate substantial justice, or bar the
vindicationofalegitimategrievance,thecourtsare
25

_______________
20 FranciscoV.J., TheRevisedRulesofCourtinthePhilippines,Vol.I,1973ed.,pp.
155156,citinganarticleofProfessorSunderlandintheUniversityofCincinnati.
21SeeCasilv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.121534,28January1998,285SCRA264.
22DirectorofLandsv.CourtofAppeals,363Phil.117;303SCRA495(1999).
23Cometav.CourtofAppeals,361Phil.383;301SCRA459(1999).
24366Phil.913;307SCRA443(1999).
25DelaPazv.Panis,315Phil.238;245SCRA242(1995);Vasquezv.HobillaAlinio,
337Phil.517;271SCRA67(1997).

641

VOL.411,SEPTEMBER23,2003
Sorianovs.Galit
justifiedinexemptingaparticularcasefromtheoperationoftherules.
(Emphasisours)
26

Indeed,wellknownistherulethatdeparturesfromproceduremay
be forgiven where they do not appear to have impaired the
substantialrightsoftheparties. AproposinthisregardisCometa
v.CA, wherewesaidthat
27

28

Thereisnoquestionthatpetitionerswereremissinattendingwithdispatch
totheprotectionoftheirinterestsasregardsthesubjectlots,andforthat
reasonthecaseinthelowercourtwasdismissedonatechnicalityandno
definitivepronouncementontheinadequacyofthepricepaidforthelevied
propertieswasevermade.Inthisregard,itbearsstressingthatprocedural
rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non
observancemayhaveresultedinprejudicetoapartyssubstantiverightsas
inthiscase.Likeallrules,theyarerequiredtobefollowedexceptwhenonly
forthemostpersuasiveofreasonstheymayberelaxedtorelievealitigant

ofaninjusticenotcommensuratewiththedegreeofhisthoughtlessnessin
not complying with the procedure prescribed. (emphasis and italics
supplied.)
29

In short, since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to


facilitatetheattainmentofjustice,theirstrictandrigidapplication
which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather
than promote substantial justice must always be avoided.
Technicalityshouldnotbeallowedtostandinthewayofequitably
andcompletelyresolvingtherightsandobligationsoftheparties.
Eschewing, therefore, the procedural objections raised by
petitioner,itbehoovesustoaddresstheissueofwhetherornotthe
questionedwritofpossessionisinfactanullityconsideringthatit

30

31

_______________
26Nervesv.CSC,342Phil.578;276SCRA610(1997).
27Mercaderv.DBP(CebuBranch),387Phil.283;332SCRA82(2000).
28G.R.No.141855,6February2001,351SCRA294,306.
29 Citing Limpotv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.44642,20February1989,170
SCRA367.
30RCPIv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.Nos.10118184,22June
1992,210SCRA222.
31CasaFilipinaRealtyCorporationv.OfficeofthePresident,311Phil.170;241
SCRA165(1995),citing RapidManpowerConsultants,Inc.v.NationalLabor
RelationsCommission,G.R.No.88683,18October1990,190SCRA747.
642

642

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Sorianovs.Galit
includesrealpropertynotexpresslymentionedintheCertificateof
SaleofRealProperty.
Petitioner,insum,dwellsonthegeneralpropositionthatsincethe
certificateofsaleisapublicdocument,itenjoysthepresumption
ofregularityandallentriesthereinarepresumedtobedoneinthe
performanceofregularfunctions.
Theargumentisnotpersuasive.
There are actually two (2) copies of the Certificate of Sale on
ExecutionofRealPropertiesissuedonFebruary4,1999involved,

namely:(a)copywhichisonfilewiththedeputysheriff;and(b)
copyregisteredwiththeRegistryofDeeds.Theobjectofscrutiny,
however,isnotthecopyoftheCertificateofSaleonExecutionof
RealPropertiesissuedbythedeputysheriffonFebruary4,1999,
butthecopythereofsubsequentlyregisteredbypetitionerwiththe
RegistryofDeedsonApril23,1999, whichincludedanentryon
the dorsalportion ofthefirstpagethereofdescribingaparcelof
landcoveredbyOCTNo.T40785notfoundintheCertificateof
SaleofRealPropertiesonfilewiththesheriff.
True, public documents by themselves may be adequate to
establish the presumption of their validity. However, their
probative weight must be evaluated not in isolation but in
conjunction with other evidence adduced by the parties in the
controversy,muchmoresointhiscasewherethe contents ofa
copythereofsubsequentlyregisteredfordocumentationpurposes
isbeingcontested.Noreasonhasbeenofferedhowandwhythe
questionedentrywassubsequentlyintercalatedinthecopyofthe
certificate of sale subsequently registered with the Registry of
Deeds.Absentanysatisfactoryexplanationastowhysaidentry
was belatedly inserted, the surreptitiousness of its inclusion
coupledwiththefurtivemannerofitsintercalationcastsserious
doubtontheauthenticityofpetitionerscopyoftheCertificateof
Sale.Thus,ithasbeenheldthatwhileapublicdocumentlikea
notarizeddeedofsaleisvestedwiththepresumptionofregularity,
thisisnotaguaranteeofthevalidityofitscontents?

32

33

34

_______________
32Rollo,pp.4142.
33Id.,pp.4344.
34Nazarenov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.138842,18October2000,343SCRA
637,652.
643

VOL.411,SEPTEMBER23,2003
Sorianovs.Galit
It must be pointed out in this regard that the issuance of a

CertificateofSaleisanendresultofjudicialforeclosurewhere
statutory requirements are strictly adhered to; where even the
slightestdeviationstherefromwillinvalidatetheproceeding and
thesale. Amongtheserequirementsisanexplicitenumerationand
correctdescriptionofwhatpropertiesaretobesoldstatedinthe
notice.Thestringenceintheobservanceoftheserequirementsis
suchthatanincorrecttitlenumbertogetherwithacorrecttechnical
descriptionofthepropertytobesoldand viceversa isdeemeda
substantialandfatalerrorwhichresultsintheinvalidationofthe
sale.
Thecertificateofsaleisanaccuraterecordofwhatpropertieswere
actuallysoldtosatisfythedebt.Thestrictnessintheobservanceof
accuracy and correctness in the description of the properties
renders the enumeration in the certificate exclusive. Thus,
subsequentlyincludingpropertieswhichhavenotbeenexplicitly
mentioned therein for registration purposes under suspicious
circumstancessmacksoffraud.Theexplanationthatthelandon
whichthepropertiessoldisnecessarilyincludedand,hence,was
belatedlytypedonthedorsalportionofthecopyofthecertificate
subsequentlyregisteredisatbestalameexcuseunworthyofbelief.
The appellate court correctly observed that there was a marked
differenceintheappearanceofthetypewrittenwordsappearingon
thefirstpageofthecopyoftheCertificateofSaleregisteredwith
theRegistryofDeeds andthoseappearingatthedorsalportion
thereof. Underscoring the irregularity of the intercalation is the
clearlydeviousattempttoletsuchaninsertionpassunnoticedby
typing the same at the back ofthe first pageinstead of onthe
secondpagewhichwasmerelyhalffilledandcouldaccommodate
theentrywithroomtospare.
Theargumentthatthelandonwhichthebuildingslevieduponin
executionisnecessarilyincludedis,likewise,tenuous.Article415
oftheCivilCodeprovides:
35

36

37

38

_______________

35 Tambuntingv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.L48278,8November1988,167

SCRA16.
36Roxasv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.100480,11May1993,221SCRA729.
37 SanJosev.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.106953,19August1993,225SCRA
450,545.
38Rollo,pp.4344.
644

644

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSA
Sorianovs.Galit

ART.415.Thefollowingareimmovableproperty:
(1)Land,buildings,roadsandconstructionsofallkindsadheredtothesoil.
xxxxxxxxx
(3)Everythingattachedtoanimmovableinafixedmanner,insuchaway
that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking them material or
deteriorationoftheobject;
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or ornamentation,
placedinbuildingsoronlandsbytheowneroftheimmovableinsucha
manner that it reveals the intention to attach them permanently to the
tenements;
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the
ownerofthetenementforanindustryorworkswhichmaybecarriedonina
buildingoronapieceofland,andwhichtenddirectlytomeettheneedsof
thesaidindustryorworks;
(6)Animalhouses,pigeonhouses,beehives,fishpondsorbreedingplaces
ofsimilarnature,incasetheirownerhasplacedthemorpreservesthemwith
theintentiontohavethempermanentlyattachedtotheland,andforminga
permanentpartofit;theanimalsintheseplacesarealsoincluded;
xxxxxxxxx
(9)Docksandstructureswhich,thoughfloating,areintendedbytheirnature
andobjecttoremainatafixedplaceonariver,lakeorcoast;
xxxxxxxxx

TheforegoingprovisionoftheCivilCodeenumerateslandand
buildings separately. Thiscanonly meanthatabuilding is, by
itself,consideredimmovable. Thus,ithasbeenheldthat
39

. .. whileit is true that a mortgage of land necessarilyincludes, inthe


absence of stipulation of the improvements thereon, buildings, still a
buildingbyitselfmaybemortgagedapartfromthelandonwhichithas

been built. Such mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the
buildingwouldstillbeconsideredimmovablepropertyevenif
_______________
39Lopezv.Orosa,G.R.No.L1081718,28February1958;Associated,Inc.andSurety
Co.,Inc.v.IsabelIya,G.R.No.L1083738,30May1958.

645

VOL.411,SEPTEMBER23,2003
Sorianovs.Galit
dealt with separately and apart from the land. (emphasis and italics
supplied)
40

Inthiscase,consideringthatwhatwassoldbyvirtueofthewritof
executionissuedbythetrialcourtwasmerelythestorehouseand
bodega constructed on the parcel of land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T40785, which by themselves are real
propertiesofrespondentsspouses,thesameshouldberegardedas
separateanddistinctfromtheconveyanceofthelotonwhichthey
stand.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is
herebyDENIEDforlackofmerit.TheDecisiondatedMay13,
2002oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.65891,which
declaredthewritofpossessionissuedbytheRegionalTrialCourt
of Balanga City, Branch1,onJuly18,2001,nullandvoid, is
AFFIRMEDintoto.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.(C.J.,Chairman),VitugandCarpio,JJ.,concur.
Azcuna,J.,Onleave.
Petitiondenied,judgmentaffirmedintoto.
Notes.Intheinterestofsubstantialjustice,proceduralrulesof
the most mandatory character in terms of compliance may be
relaxed.(Yaovs.CourtofAppeals,344SCRA202[2000])
The fact that the sheriff, in levying on the property of the
corporation,statedinthenoticeoflevyaswellasinthecertificate
ofsalethatwhatwasbeinglevieduponandsoldwaswhatever
rights,shares,interestand/orparticipationofthestockholderand

president in the corporation, may have on the subject property,


showsthatthesheriffsconductwasimpelledpartlybyignorance
of the Corporation Law and partly by mere overzealousness to
complywithhisdutiesandnotbybadfaithorblatantdisregardof
thetrialcourtsorder.(Boocvs.Bantuas,354SCRA279[2001])
o0o
_______________
40PrudentialBankv.Panis,G.R.No.L50008,31August1987,153SCRA390,
396,citingLeungYeev.StrongMachineryCo.,37Phil.644(1918).
646
Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.