Court of Appeals : The Government of the Philippine Islands, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Mariano Conde, defendant-appellant G.R. nos. 3031 and 3249, October 26, 1939

Title

Language

English

Source

VIII (3) February 15, 1940

Year

1940

Subject

Foreclosure

Mortgages

Certiorari

Appellate procedure (Civil procedure)

Actions and defenses (Law)

Appellate courts

Philippines. Supreme Court

Conde, Mariano

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

The Supreme Court decision in a foreclosure suit, the mortgaged property was sold at the public auction to the plaintiff. Afterward, the approval of the sale, the deficiency judgment, and an 8% interest was prayed for by the plaintiff. The defendant complained about the ground of inadequacy of price as compared to its assessed and actual market values. The Court confirmed the sale and issued an alias writ of execution for the deficiency.

Fulltext

February 15_ , 1940 THE LA WYERS' JOURNAL 111 COURT OF APPl:ALS The Government of the Philippine Islands, 1.ilaintiff-appellee, vs. Mariano Conde, defendant-appellant G. R. Nos. 3031 and 9249, October 26, 1939, Padilla, J. 1. JUDICIAL SALE; CONFIRMATION; INADEQUACY OR PRICE.-''l\·-e have it as an established doctrine that inadequacy of the price alo!1e, unless shocking to the-conscience of the court, will not be suffi~ient to set aside the sale, if there is no showing, * * -"', that in the event of resale a better price can be obtained, or that ,there was fraud, col1usfon, mistake, surprise, unfairness or irregularity in the conduct of said sale" (The Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Zapanta, et al., 37 Off; Gaz., 1729-1730). 2. APPEAL; EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL; STAY OF EXECUTION; SUPERSEDEAS BOND.-A party against whom execution is issued for special reasons, canno't appeal by bill of ex'ceptions from the ordc.r of execution. The only way of staying such execution is by filing a supersedea'< bond, or by extra~dinary legal remedy. DECISION Pursuant to a judgment B:ffirmcd by the Supreme Court in a foreclosure suit, the morgaged property was sold at public auction for rs,ooo to the plaintiff. Afterwards, confiwation of the "Safe anO: deficiency judgment for P6,195.53 and 8% inti;>rest thereon, were prayed for by· the !Jlaintiff. The defendant objected on the i;round of inadequacy-of price as compared to its assessed and actual market values. The Court confirmed the sale and issued an alias writ of execution for the deficiency. Exception to the order of confirmation and t>xecution and motion tor new trial were filed. Denial of motion and announc<!ment of intent to appeal followed one another. Pending allowance of the bill of exceptions, ihe plaintiff prayed that, notwithstandin~ the filing of the bill of exceptions, an order of execution be issued for the satisfaction or the deficiency judgment, On " the ground that the appeal was frivolous and intended tll delay the satisfaction thereof, unless a supersedeas bond for the amount of th; de·ficiency judgment were given. This prayer was granted. The defendant excepted and moved for reconsideration. The last motion having been d~nied, -another bill of ~xceptions was filed to appeal from the order o! execution. There are, therefore, two appt>als, one from the order of confirmation 'and other from the 01tler of execution of the deficiency judgm'ent pursuant to the pr,~v is.ions of section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The fin.st appeal bears G. R. No. 3031 and the second G. R. No. 3249 of this Court. As the i;econd appaal is an offshoot of the first, we see no usefulness in writing two opinions. Appellant has filed one brief ii. support of the two appeal\ 1 The ground for the objection to the confirmation of siile of the mortgage property for PS,000 is inadequacy of price, as compared to its assessed or actual market value. It is .alleged thllt the assessed value was Pl3,950, and the market value on December 9, 1937, the date when the objection to the confirmation of sale was filed, was estimated at Pl6,000. This estimated value is not supported by any , evidence. fn declining to set aside an order of _confirmation 0r. the ground of inadequacy of price, the ~upreme Court said: "Assuming that the reasonable value of the propertiec:i is P66,000, as the affidavit£ of the real estate brokers purport to show, we do not think that the price of 'P43,000 at which they were sold is so grossly inadequate as to shock· the conscience of the court. In Bank of the Philippine Islands Vl>. Green (52 Phil., 491), the property worth P60,('00 was sold for P25,000; in National Bank vs. Gonzales (4"'5 Phil., 693), the property worth !°45,950 was sold for Pl5,000; and in the Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Serna (G. R. No. 32196, March 8, 1930, not reported), the prope.rty worth P120,000 was sold for F15,000. In none of these cases did this court set aside the sale for inadequacy of price. ''We have it as an established doctrbc that inadequacy of the price alone, unless shocking to the conscience of the court. will not be sufficient t.o 5et Headnote 1 aside the sale, if there is no showing, as in the instant case, that in the event of a l·esale a bftter price can be obtained, or that there v•as fraud, collusion, mistake, surprise, un- . fairness or irregularity in the conduct of said sale. (Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Green, supra; \Varner, Barnes & Co. vs. Santos, 14 Phil., 446; La Urbana vs. Belando, 54 Phil., 930; National Bank vs. Gonzales, supra; Guerrero vs. Guerre1·0. 57 Phil., 442; Cu Un.iieng & Sons vs. Mabalacat Sugar Co., 58 Phil., 439; and Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Serna, supra.)" (The Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Zapanta, et al., 37 Off. Gaz., 1729-1730.) The question involved in the second appPal (G.1 R. No. 3249) is whether the party, against whom execution is issuecl.for special reasons, may appeal by Headnote 2 bill of exceptions from the order of execution. A stay of execution by an appeal fr~m an order directing it would render the execution of judgments for special reasons nugatory, ineffective, and valueiess, as the party ~gainst whom &ecution is iSsued may always stay it by taking an appeal therefrom b;r bill of exceptions. If by •filing a bill of exceptions such party may stay execut;on, there would be added ,to section 144 of the Codi of Civil Proceedure· provisions that the leg1islative department had n;t intended to enact, :r'he only way of staying wch execution is by filing a supel'ISedeas bond. Thi.s was required in the order of execution appealed from, but, instead of filing it, the appellant announr.ed his Intention to appeal by bill of exceptions which he · s~bsequently filed. It is a clever cir'cumvention of..the law and of the order of execution which we cannot , countenance, much less ·sanction. Relief against abuse of discretioll by the Court in ol'dering execution of judgment fOr special reasons or fixing excef:lsive amount of supersedeas bonds £hould not be by appeal but by extraordinary legal remedy. There being no ground for diSturbing the order of the Court of December 15, 1937, confinning the sale of the mortgaged property and requiring payment of the balance d deficiency, the same is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. As no appeal can be taken from the order d February 12" 1938, directing execution of the deficiency judgment for special rcasqns, the appeal taken . froni said order i:- dismissed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered. SABINO PADILLA. We CONCUR: Cesar Benzon, Pedro I'uason, Jose Lopez Vito, A lex. Reyes. TECHNICALITIES TANGLE JUSriCE IN NAME OF FORM "Every lawyer -knows th<'!t the continued reversal of judgments, the sending of parties to a litigation to a11d from betwee11 the trial and appellate courts, he's become" disgrace to.the <11dminislration of justice. Everybody knows th<11t the Hst network of highly technical rulas of evidence and procedure serves to hngle justice in the neme oi form. It is a dis· grace to our law, and a .discredit to our inditutions."-Elihu Root in Washington University l a w Quarterly. Vol. 23, April, 1938, No. 3.

Media