VOL.

213, SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 397

Suarez vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 94918. September 2, 1992.

DANILO I. SUAREZ, EUFROCINA SUAREZ-ANDRES,

MARCELO I. SUAREZ, JR., EVELYN SUAREZ-DE LEON and
REGINIO I. SUAREZ, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS,
VALENTE RAYMUNDO, VIOLETA RAYMUNDO, MA.
CONCEPCION VITO and VIRGINIA BANTA, respondents.

Civil Law; Succession; Auction sale of decedent’s property to satisfy

judgment debt of surviving spouse; Right of heirs to institute action for
annulment of sale.—To start with, only one-half of the 5 parcels of land
should have been the subject of the auction sale. x x x The proprietary
interest of petitioners in the levied and auctioned property is different from
and adverse to that of their mother. Petitioners became co-owners of the
property not because of their mother but through their own right as children
of their deceased father. Therefore, petitioners are not barred in any way
from instituting the action to annul the auction sale to protect their own
interest.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

398

398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Suarez vs. Court of Appeals

PETITION to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Villareal Law Offices for petitioners.
     Nelson Loyola for private respondents.

NOCON, J.:

The ultimate issue before Us is whether or not private respondents

can validly acquire all the five (5) parcels of land co-owned by
petitioners and registered in the name of petitioner’s deceased father,
Marcelo Suarez, whose estate has not been partitioned or liquidated,
after the said properties were levied and publicly sold en masse to
private respondents to satisfy the personal judgment debt of Teofista
Suarez, the surviving spouse of Marcelo Suarez, mother of herein
petitioners.
The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:
Herein petitioners are brothers and sisters. Their father died in
1955 and since then his estate consisting of several valuable parcels
of land in Pasig, Metro Manila has not been liquidated or
partitioned. In 1977, petitioners’ widowed mother and Rizal Realty
Corporation lost in the consolidated cases for rescission of contract
and for damages, and were ordered by Branch 1 of the then Court of
First Instance of Rizal (now Branch 151, RTC of Pasig) to pay,
jointly and severally, herein respondents
1
the aggregate principal
amount of about P70,000 as damages.
The judgment against petitioner’s mother and Rizal Realty
Corporation having become final and executory, five (5) valuable
parcels of land in Pasig, Metro Manila, (worth to be millions then)
were levied and sold on execution on June 24, 1983 in favor of the
private respondents as the highest bidder for the amount of
P94,170.00. Private respondents were then issued a certificate of
sale which was subsequently registered on August 1, 1983.
On June 21, 1984, before the expiration
2
of the redemption period,
petitioners filed a reinvindicatory action against pri-

________________

1 Records, pp. 19-24.

2 Records, pp. 38-41.

399

VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 399

Suarez vs. Court of Appeals

vate respondents and the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, thereafter

docketed as Civil Case No. 51203, for the annulment of the auction
sale and the recovery of the ownership of the levied pieces of
property. Therein, they alleged, among others, that being strangers to
the case decided against their mother, they cannot be held liable
therefor and that the five (5) parcels of land, of which they are co-
owners, can neither be levied nor sold on execution.
On July 31, 1984, the Provincial
3
Sheriff of Rizal issued to private
respondents a final deed of sale over the properties.
On October 22, 1984, Teofista Suarez joined by herein 4
petitioners filed with Branch 151 a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Order dated October 10, 1984, claiming that the parcels of land
are co-owned by them and further informing the Court the filing and
pendency of an action to annul the auction sale (Civil Case No.
51203), which motion however, was denied.
On February 25, 1985, a writ of preliminary injunction was
issued enjoining private respondents from transferring to third
parties the levied parcels of land based on the finding that the
auctioned lands are co-owned by petitioners.
On March 1, 1985, private respondent Valente Raymundo filed in
Civil Case No. 51203 a Motion to Dismiss for failure on the part of
the petitioners to prosecute, however, such motion was later denied
by Branch 155, Regional Trial Court, Pasig.
On December 1985, Raymundo filed in Civil Case No. 51203 an
Ex-Parte Motion to Dismiss complaint for failure to prosecute. This
was granted by Branch 155 through an Order dated May 29, 1986,
notwithstanding petitioner’s pending motion for the issuance of alias
summons to be served upon the other defendants in the said case. A
motion for reconsideration was filed but was later denied.
On October 10, 1984, RTC Branch 151 issued in Civil Case Nos.
21736-21739 an Order directing Teofista Suarez and all persons
claiming right under her to vacate the lots subject of the judicial
sale; to desist from removing or alienating improvements thereon;
and to surrender to private respondents the

_______________

3 Records, p. 25.
4 Records, pp. 27-29.

400

400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Suarez vs. Court of Appeals

owner’s duplicate copy of the torrens title and other pertinent

documents.
Teofista Suarez then filed with the then Court of Appeals a
petition for certiorari to annul the Orders of Branch 151 dated
October 10, 1984 and October 14, 1986 issued in Civil Case Nos.
21736-21739.
On December 4, 1986, petitioners5 filed with Branch 155 a
Motion for reconsideration of the Order
6
dated September 24, 1986.
In an Order dated June 10, 1987, Branch 155 lifted its previous
order of dismissal and directed the issuance of alias summons.
Respondents then appealed to the Court 7of Appeals seeking 8
to
annul the orders dated
9
February 25, 1985, May 19, 1989 and
February 26, 1990 issued in Civil Case No. 51203 and further
ordering respondent judge to dismiss Civil Case No. 51203. The

10
 10
appellate court rendered its decision on July 27, 1990, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby granted and the

questioned orders dated February 25, 1985, May 19, 1989 and February 26,
1990 issued in Civil Case No. 51203 are hereby annulled; 11
further
respondent judge is ordered to dismiss Civil Case No. 51203.”

Hence, this appeal.

Even without touching on the incidents and issues raised by both
petitioner and private respondents and the developments subsequent
to the filing of the complaint, We cannot but notice the glaring error
committed by the trial court.
It would be useless to discuss the procedural issue on the validity
of the execution and the manner of publicly selling en masse the
subject properties for auction. To start with, only

______________

5 Records, p. 46.
6 Records, p. 104.
7 Records, p. 42.
8 Records, pp. 47-50.
9 Records, p. 76.
10 Records, pp. 177-180.
11 Rollo, p. 18.

401

VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 401

Suarez vs. Court of Appeals

one-half of the 5 parcels of land should have been the subject of the
auction sale.
The law in point is Article 777 of the Civil Code, the law
applicable at the time of the institution of the case:

“The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death
of the decedent.”

Article 888 further provides:

“The legitime of the legitimate children and descendants consists of one-

half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother.
The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half, subject to the rights
of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.”

Article 892 par. 2 likewise provides:

 “If there are two or more legitimate children or descendants, the surviving
spouse shall be entitled to a portion equal to the legitime of each of the
legitimate children or descendants.”

Thus, from the foregoing, the legitime of the surviving spouse is

equal to the legitime of each child.
The proprietary interest of petitioners in the levied and auctioned
property is different from and adverse to that of their mother.
Petitioners became co-owners of the property not because of their
mother but through their own right as children of their deceased
father. Therefore, petitioners are not barred in any way from
instituting the action to annul the auction sale to protect their own
interest.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July
27, 1990 as well as its Resolution of August 28, 1990 are hereby
REVERSED and set aside; and Civil Case No. 51203 is reinstated
only to determine that portion which belongs to petitioners and to
annul the sale with regard to said portion.
SO ORDERED.

          Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Padilla and Regalado, JJ.,

concur.

402

402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic Planters Bank vs. Court of Appeals

     Melo, J., No part.

Decision reversed and set aside.

Note.—The transfer in question being void, the properties

covered thereby remain part of the estate of the deceased, and are
therefore recoverable by the intestate heirs of the latter (Bagnas vs.
Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 159).

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.