Soriano vs. Galit

The enumeration of properties in a Certificate of Sale on Execution is exclusive, and properties not explicitly mentioned therein cannot be subsequently included in a writ of possession. A building is independently immovable under Article 415 of the Civil Code and may be sold or mortgaged apart from the land on which it is constructed.

Petitioner Marcelo Soriano and respondent Ricardo Galit were parties to a loan agreement secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 569. The dispute arose from the execution of a judgment in a sum of money case, where the properties levied upon and sold at public auction included a storehouse and bodega constructed on a separate parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-40785, but not the land itself. The case involves the interplay between procedural rules on execution sales and the Civil Code's classification of immovable property.

Respondent Ricardo Galit contracted a loan from petitioner Marcelo Soriano in the total sum of P480,000.00, evidenced by four promissory notes of P120,000.00 each dated August 2, 1996; August 15, 1996; September 4, 1996; and September 14, 1996. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 569. After Galit failed to pay, Soriano filed a complaint for sum of money with the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Branch 1, docketed as Civil Case No. 6643. The Galit spouses failed to file their answer, were declared in default, and judgment was rendered against them on July 7, 1997, ordering them to pay P350,000.00 plus 12% interest, P20,000.00 as attorney's fees, and costs of suit.

The judgment became final and executory, and a writ of execution was issued. Deputy Sheriff Renato E. Robles levied on the following properties of the Galit spouses: (1) a parcel of land covered by OCT No. T-569 containing 35,759 square meters; (2) a store/house constructed on Lot No. 1103 with an area of 30 square meters, constructed on TCT No. T-40785; and (3) a bodega constructed on Lot No. 1103 with a floor area of 42.75 square meters. At the public auction held on December 23, 1998, Soriano was the highest and only bidder with a bid price of P483,000.00. On February 4, 1999, Deputy Sheriff Robles issued a Certificate of Sale of Execution of Real Property enumerating the same three properties.

On April 23, 1999, Soriano caused the registration of the Certificate of Sale with the Registry of Deeds. The registered copy included, at the dorsal portion of the first page, an entry describing a parcel of land covered by OCT No. T-40785 containing 139 square meters — an entry not found in the Certificate of Sale on file with the Deputy Sheriff. On February 23, 2001, ten months after registration, Soriano moved for the issuance of a writ of possession, arguing that the one-year redemption period had elapsed without redemption. The trial court granted the motion on June 4, 2001, and issued the writ on July 18, 2001, which included the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-40785.

The Galit spouses filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 65891, assailing the inclusion of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-40785 in the writ of possession. They argued that said property was not among those sold on execution as reflected in the Certificate of Sale. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, declaring the writ null and void and ordering the redelivery of TCT No. T-40785. The Court of Appeals observed a marked difference in the appearance of the typewritten words on the first page of the registered Certificate of Sale and those at the dorsal portion, underscoring the irregularity of the intercalation.

• Procedural Remedy: Petitioner argued that certiorari under Rule 65 was not the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy for respondents, who could have filed a motion for reconsideration, a motion to quash the writ, or an appeal, and should suffer the consequences of sleeping on their rights.
• Presumption of Regularity: Petitioner argued that the Certificate of Sale is a public document enjoying the presumption of regularity, and its validity cannot be overcome by a mere strange feeling that something is amiss on its surface simply because the typewritten words on the front page and at the dorsal portion differ.
• Inclusion of Land: Petitioner contended that the sale of the immovables (storehouse and bodega) necessarily encompasses the land on which they stand.

• Exclusive Enumeration: Respondents argued that the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-40785 was not among those sold on execution by Deputy Sheriff Robles as reflected in the Certificate of Sale on Execution of Real Property, and thus should not have been included in the writ of possession.

• Procedural Remedy: Whether the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy for respondents in assailing the writ of possession despite the availability of other remedies.
• Validity of the Writ of Possession: Whether the writ of possession is null and void for including real property not expressly mentioned in the Certificate of Sale of Real Property.
• Inclusion of Land: Whether the sale of the storehouse and bodega necessarily includes the land on which they stand.

• Procedural Remedy: Yes. Certiorari was a proper remedy. While certiorari may not generally be used as a substitute for appeal, this rule should not be strictly enforced if the petition is genuinely meritorious, and where rigid application of the rules would frustrate substantial justice.
• Validity of the Writ of Possession: Yes, the writ of possession was properly nullified. The enumeration in the Certificate of Sale is exclusive, and the belated intercalation of the entry describing the land under suspicious circumstances casts serious doubt on its authenticity.
• Inclusion of Land: No. A building is by itself considered immovable under Article 415 of the Civil Code and may be sold or mortgaged apart from the land on which it is built.

• Procedural Remedy: The Court acknowledged that those seeking to avail of procedural remedies must adhere to the requirements thereof, but equally settled that the Rules of Court seek to eliminate undue reliance on technical rules. Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the rules shall be liberally construed to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. Citing China Banking Corporation vs. Members of the Board of Trustees of Home Development Mutual Fund, the Court held that while certiorari may not be used as a substitute for appeal, this rule should not be strictly enforced if the petition is genuinely meritorious. Departures from procedure may be forgiven where they do not appear to have impaired the substantial rights of the parties. Since the petition was genuinely meritorious, the procedural objections raised by petitioner were eschewed.

• Validity of the Writ of Possession: The Court noted that there were two copies of the Certificate of Sale: one on file with the deputy sheriff and one registered with the Registry of Deeds. The object of scrutiny was the registered copy, which included an entry on the dorsal portion describing the parcel of land covered by OCT No. T-40785, not found in the copy on file with the sheriff. While public documents enjoy the presumption of regularity, their probative weight must be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence. No reason was offered for how and why the questioned entry was subsequently intercalated. The surreptitiousness of its inclusion, coupled with the furtive manner of its intercalation, cast serious doubt on the authenticity of petitioner's copy. The issuance of a Certificate of Sale is an end result of judicial foreclosure where statutory requirements are strictly adhered to, and even the slightest deviations will invalidate the proceeding and the sale. The strictness in the observance of accuracy and correctness in the description of properties renders the enumeration in the certificate exclusive. The explanation that the land on which the properties sold is necessarily included was deemed a lame excuse unworthy of belief. The appellate court correctly observed the marked difference in the appearance of the typewritten words, and the devious attempt to let the insertion pass unnoticed by typing it at the back of the first page instead of on the second page which was merely half-filled.

• Inclusion of Land: Article 415 of the Civil Code enumerates land and buildings separately, which can only mean that a building is by itself considered immovable. Citing Prudential Bank vs. Panis, the Court held that while a mortgage of land necessarily includes the improvements thereon in the absence of stipulation, still a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built. Such mortgage would still be a real estate mortgage, for the building would still be considered immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land. In this case, what was sold was merely the storehouse and bodega constructed on the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-40785, which by themselves are real properties of respondents, and should be regarded as separate and distinct from the conveyance of the lot on which they stand.

• Exclusive Enumeration in Certificate of Sale — The enumeration of properties in a Certificate of Sale on Execution is exclusive. The strictness in the observance of accuracy and correctness in the description of properties renders the enumeration in the certificate exclusive, and subsequently including properties not explicitly mentioned therein for registration purposes under suspicious circumstances smacks of fraud.
• Building as Independent Immovable — Under Article 415 of the Civil Code, land and buildings are enumerated separately, meaning a building is by itself considered immovable. A building may be mortgaged or sold apart from the land on which it is built, and such transaction would still be considered a real estate mortgage or sale of immovable property.
• Liberal Construction of Procedural Rules — The Rules of Court shall be liberally construed to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. While certiorari may not generally be used as a substitute for appeal, this rule should not be strictly enforced if the petition is genuinely meritorious, and where rigid application of the rules would frustrate substantial justice.
• Presumption of Regularity of Public Documents — While public documents enjoy the presumption of regularity, this is not a guarantee of the validity of their contents. Their probative weight must be evaluated not in isolation but in conjunction with other evidence adduced by the parties.

• "The certificate of sale is an accurate record of what properties were actually sold to satisfy the debt. The strictness in the observance of accuracy and correctness in the description of the properties renders the enumeration in the certificate exclusive. Thus, subsequently including properties which have not been explicitly mentioned therein for registration purposes under suspicious circumstances smacks of fraud." — This passage articulates the core ratio decidendi: the exclusive nature of the enumeration in the Certificate of Sale and the consequence of belatedly including unmentioned properties.
• "The foregoing provision of the Civil Code enumerates land and buildings separately. This can only mean that a building is, by itself, considered immovable." — This states the doctrinal basis for treating a building as an independent immovable, supporting the conclusion that the sale of the storehouse and bodega did not include the land.
• "while it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation of the improvements thereon, buildings, still a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built. Such mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the building would still be considered immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land." — This quotation from Prudential Bank vs. Panis is the controlling precedent establishing that a building may be dealt with separately from the land.

• China Banking Corporation vs. Members of the Board of Trustees of Home Development Mutual Fund, 366 Phil. 913 (1999) — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that certiorari should not be strictly enforced as a substitute for appeal when the petition is genuinely meritorious.
• Cometa vs. CA, 361 Phil. 383 (1999) — Cited for the principle that procedural rules are not to be belittled but may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of thoughtlessness in not complying with procedure.
• Prudential Bank vs. Panis, G.R. No. L-50008, August 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 390 — Cited as controlling authority for the doctrine that a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it is built, and such mortgage would still be a real estate mortgage.
• Nazareno vs. CA, G.R. No. 138842, October 18, 2000, 343 SCRA 637 — Cited for the principle that while a public document is vested with the presumption of regularity, this is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents.
• San Jose vs. CA, G.R. No. 106953, August 19, 1993, 225 SCRA 450 — Cited for the rule that an incorrect title number together with a correct technical description of the property to be sold, and vice versa, is deemed a substantial and fatal error resulting in the invalidation of the sale.

• Rule 1, Section 6, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that the rules shall be liberally construed to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. Applied to relax procedural requirements on certiorari where the petition is genuinely meritorious.
• Article 415, Civil Code — Enumerates what constitutes immovable property, listing land and buildings separately. Applied to hold that a building is by itself considered immovable and may be sold or mortgaged apart from the land on which it stands.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Vitug, and Carpio, JJ., concurred. Azcuna, J., was on leave.