G.R. No. 94918. September 2, 1992.

* herein respondents the aggregate principal

DANILO I. SUAREZ, EUFROCINA SUAREZ- amount of about P70,000 as damages. 1

ANDRES, MARCELO I. SUAREZ, JR., The judgment against petitioner’s mother and
EVELYN SUAREZ-DE LEON and REGINIO I. Rizal Realty Corporation having become final
SUAREZ, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF and executory, five (5) valuable parcels of land in
APPEALS, VALENTE RAYMUNDO, VIOLETA Pasig, Metro Manila, (worth to be millions then)
RAYMUNDO, MA. CONCEPCION VITO and were levied and sold on execution on June 24,
VIRGINIA BANTA, respondents. 1983 in favor of the private respondents as the
highest bidder for the amount of P94,170.00.
Civil Law; Succession; Auction sale of
Private respondents were then issued a certificate
decedent’s property to satisfy judgment debt of
surviving spouse; Right of heirs to institute action for of sale which was subsequently registered on
annulment of sale.—To start with, only one-half of the August 1, 1983.
5 parcels of land should have been the subject of the On June 21, 1984, before the expiration of the
auction sale. x x x The proprietary interest of redemption period, petitioners filed a
petitioners in the levied and auctioned property is reinvindicatory action  against pri-
2

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
1
 Records, pp. 19-24.
2
 Records, pp. 38-41.
children of their deceased father. Therefore,
petitioners are not barred in any way from instituting 399
the action to annul the auction sale to protect their VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 2, 1992
own interest.
Suarez vs. Court of Appeals
_______________ vate respondents and the Provincial Sheriff of
Rizal, thereafter docketed as Civil Case No.
*
 SECOND DIVISION.
51203, for the annulment of the auction sale and
398 the recovery of the ownership of the levied pieces
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of property. Therein, they alleged, among others,
Suarez vs. Court of Appeals that being strangers to the case decided against
their mother, they cannot be held liable therefor
PETITION to review the decision of the Court of and that the five (5) parcels of land, of which they
Appeals. are co-owners, can neither be levied nor sold on
execution.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. On July 31, 1984, the Provincial Sheriff of
     Villareal Law Offices for petitioners. Rizal issued to private respondents a final deed of
     Nelson Loyola for private respondents. sale  over the properties.
3

On October 22, 1984, Teofista Suarez joined

NOCON, J.: by herein petitioners filed with Branch 151 a
Motion for Reconsideration  of the Order dated
4

The ultimate issue before Us is whether or not October 10, 1984, claiming that the parcels of
private respondents can validly acquire all the land are co-owned by them and further informing
five (5) parcels of land co-owned by petitioners the Court the filing and pendency of an action to
and registered in the name of petitioner’s annul the auction sale (Civil Case No. 51203),
deceased father, Marcelo Suarez, whose estate which motion however, was denied.
has not been partitioned or liquidated, after the On February 25, 1985, a writ of preliminary
said properties were levied and publicly sold en injunction was issued enjoining private
masse to private respondents to satisfy the respondents from transferring to third parties the
personal judgment debt of Teofista Suarez, the levied parcels of land based on the finding that
surviving spouse of Marcelo Suarez, mother of the auctioned lands are co-owned by petitioners.
herein petitioners. On March 1, 1985, private respondent Valente
The undisputed facts of the case are as Raymundo filed in Civil Case No. 51203 a
follows: Motion to Dismiss for failure on the part of the
Herein petitioners are brothers and sisters. petitioners to prosecute, however, such motion
Their father died in 1955 and since then his estate was later denied by Branch 155, Regional Trial
consisting of several valuable parcels of land in Court, Pasig.
Pasig, Metro Manila has not been liquidated or On December 1985, Raymundo filed in Civil
partitioned. In 1977, petitioners’ widowed mother Case No. 51203 an Ex-Parte Motion to Dismiss
and Rizal Realty Corporation lost in the complaint for failure to prosecute. This was
consolidated cases for rescission of contract and granted by Branch 155 through an Order dated
for damages, and were ordered by Branch 1 of the May 29, 1986, notwithstanding petitioner’s
then Court of First Instance of Rizal (now Branch pending motion for the issuance of alias summons
151, RTC of Pasig) to pay, jointly and severally, to be served upon the other defendants in the said
case. A motion for reconsideration was filed but VOL. 213, SEPTEMBER 2, 1992
was later denied. Suarez vs. Court of Appeals
On October 10, 1984, RTC Branch 151 issued one-half of the 5 parcels of land should have been
in Civil Case Nos. 21736-21739 an Order the subject of the auction sale.
directing Teofista Suarez and all persons claiming The law in point is Article 777 of the Civil
right under her to vacate the lots subject of the Code, the law applicable at the time of the
judicial sale; to desist from removing or institution of the case:
alienating improvements thereon; and to “The rights to the succession are transmitted from the
surrender to private respondents the moment of the death of the decedent.”
_______________
Article 888 further provides:
3
 Records, p. 25. “The legitime of the legitimate children and
4
 Records, pp. 27-29. descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary
400 estate of the father and of the mother.
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED The latter may freely dispose of the remaining
half, subject to the rights of illegitimate children and
Suarez vs. Court of Appeals of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.”
owner’s duplicate copy of the torrens title and
other pertinent documents. Article 892 par. 2 likewise provides:
Teofista Suarez then filed with the then Court “If there are two or more legitimate children or
of Appeals a petition for certiorari to annul the descendants, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to a
portion equal to the legitime of each of the legitimate
Orders of Branch 151 dated October 10, 1984 and
children or descendants.”
October 14, 1986 issued in Civil Case Nos.
21736-21739. Thus, from the foregoing, the legitime of the
On December 4, 1986, petitioners filed with surviving spouse is equal to the legitime of each
Branch 155 a Motion for reconsideration of the child.
Order  dated September 24, 1986. In an Order
5
The proprietary interest of petitioners in the
dated June 10, 1987,  Branch 155 lifted its
6
levied and auctioned property is different from
previous order of dismissal and directed the and adverse to that of their mother. Petitioners
issuance of alias summons. became co-owners of the property not because of
Respondents then appealed to the Court of their mother but through their own right as
Appeals seeking to annul the orders dated children of their deceased father. Therefore,
February 25, 1985,  May 19, 1989  and February
7 8
petitioners are not barred in any way from
26, 1990  issued in Civil Case No. 51203 and
9
instituting the action to annul the auction sale to
further ordering respondent judge to dismiss Civil protect their own interest.
Case No. 51203. The appellate court rendered its WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
decision on July 27, 1990,  the dispositive portion
10
Appeals dated July 27, 1990 as well as its
of which reads: Resolution of August 28, 1990 are hereby
“WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby REVERSED and set aside; and Civil Case No.
granted and the questioned orders dated February 25, 51203 is reinstated only to determine that portion
1985, May 19, 1989 and February 26, 1990 issued which belongs to petitioners and to annul the sale
in Civil Case No. 51203 are hereby annulled; further with regard to said portion.
respondent judge is ordered to dismiss Civil Case No.
SO ORDERED.
51203.” 11

     Narvasa (C.J.,
Hence, this appeal. Chairman), Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Even without touching on the incidents and 402
issues raised by both petitioner and private
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
respondents and the developments subsequent to
the filing of the complaint, We cannot but notice 2 ANNOTATED
the glaring error committed by the trial court. Republic Planters Bank vs. Court of Appeal
It would be useless to discuss the procedural      Melo, J., No part.
issue on the validity of the execution and the Decision reversed and set aside.
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