Anda di halaman 1dari 2

111. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL vs. CA and SANDRA K.

SHAOUY

FIRST DIVISION
THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL vs. CA and SANDRA K. SHAOUY
G.R. No. L-22606 | December 12, 1975
MAKASIAR, J

Syllabus:
EXECUTION SALE; SALE HELD NOT ON THE DATE INDICATED IN THE
NOTICE IS VOID. — An auction sale, conducted pursuant to levy and execution of
defendant's property, is void, where the same was held on the date other than that
indicated in the notice of sale. The sheriff should send new notices to the judgment debtor
and to the public about the change of the date for the auction sale.
ID.; REQUISITES OF; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO POST REQUIRED NOTICE OF
SALE. — The sheriff's failure or omission to post the notice of sale in three (3) public
places in the municipality where the sale was to take place, for not less than five (5) nor
more than ten (10) days, as required by Section 16(b), Rule 39 of the 1940 Rules of Court,
nullifies the sale.
ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF GROSS INADEQUACY OF PRICE. — Where it appears that
the judgment creditor paid a scandalously low price for the articles sold, that the sale was
made on a day different from that advertised, that the sheriff's sale was held at the
premises of the judgment debtor at which only the judgment creditor was the bidder, and
that prior to the sale, the judgment creditor already brought a truck with him to carry away
the goods after the sale, from said facts one may infer connivance between the judgment
creditor and the sheriff for which they should be held solidarily liable for the damage
caused to the judgment debtor.

Facts:
Sandra K. Shaouy, herein private respondent, was a tenant of Charles Hollmann
at the latter's house at 217 Ortega Street, San Juan, Rizal. On September 24, 1956,
Charles Hollmann filed a civil action against private respondent for unlawful detainer. The
case was decided based on a compromise agreement which the Justice of the Peace
approved. The Compromise Agreement provided that Sandra Shaouy acknowledges her
obligation of paying rentals to Charles Hollman and promises to pay such obligation.
However, she was not able to fulfill said obligation. Thus, Charles Hollmann asked for
and secured a writ of execution from the Justice of the Peace, dated July 10, 1957, and
pursuant thereto, petitioner levied upon various personal properties of respondent Sandra
Shaouy, namely radio phono, matrimonial bed, electric range, rattan set, lamp shade,
television, refrigerator, air conditioning unit, and tableware cabinet and had them
advertised for sale for August 23, 1957. During the sale, Charles Hollman was the only
bidder and, therefore, he acquired all of the properties which were levied from Sandra
111. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL vs. CA and SANDRA K. SHAOUY

Shaouy. Sandra questioned the sale on the ground that Charles paid very low prices for
the levied properties.

Issue:
Whether the sale of the levied properties was valid.

Ruling:
No, the sale was void. The sale was not held on the date indicated in the notice
and the gross inadequacy of the price paid by petitioner Hollmann as judgment-creditor
for the personal properties of private respondent is so shocking to the conscience as to
render the sale null and void.

The auction sale of private respondent's personal properties was held on August
24, 1957 and not on August 23, 1957, which was the date advertised for the sale. The
petitioner Provincial Sheriff should have sent new notices to the debtor and to the public
about the change of the date for the auction sale (Sec. 16, Rule 39, 1940 Rules of Court,
now Sec. 16, Rule 39, 1964 Rules of Court; Ago vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-17898,
Oct. 31, 1962, 6 SCRA 530; Aragon vs. Jorge, 85 Phil. 246; Balagtas vs. Arguelles, 52
Phil. 317; Campomanes vs. Bartolome, et al., 38 Phil. 808).

As found by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, the Provincial Sheriff
failed to post the notice of sale in three (3) public places in the municipality where the sale
was to take place, for not less than five (5) nor more than ten (10) days, as required by
Section 16(b), Rule 39 of the 1940 Rules of Court. This omission likewise nullifies the
sale.

As regards the gross inadequacy, the Court of Appeals stated:

“... (I)t further being established by petitioner that 1st, her radio phone worth P1,000.00,
Majestic, acquired in 1953, was sold for P100.00; secondly, her matrimonial bed worth
P500.00 was sold for P50,00; thirdly, her electric range with four burners Norge, which
she acquired in the States for P1,000.00 was sold for P100.00; fourthly, her TV set, 21
inches which she bought in 1954 for P1,500.00 was sold for P100.00; fifthly her
refrigerator 7 or 8 cubic feet which she acquired for P1,000.00 was sold for P85.00; sixthly
her airconditioning unit which she acquired from the States for P1,500.00 each was sold
for P120.00 each; and her imported Bangkok tableware cabinet for which she paid
P800.00 was sold for P61.00 xxxxxxx.”