Because the Law is for Juan and All!
Full-service law firm. Notary Public.Unit D, Legacy Building, 44 Shorthorn St.,Project 8, Quezon City.454-6881, 0905-240-4019,0922-420-5569, firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com.
Please be patient if it takes a while for your calls or emails to get answered, someone might have come in before you.
Use the search bar with keywords for topics you have questions on to navigate the site, e.g. holder in due course, bail, etc.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Execution Sale, When Postponement Valid
The condition for the postponement of execution sale
(auction sale) to satisfy a judgment must be met. Otherwise, the sale must push
through, and a sale at any other date is a nullity.
As correctly pointed out by the
respondent court (and the trial court), the proper notice and publication in a
newspaper was made for the sale at public auction scheduled for March 27, 1971.
On motion, however, of private respondents, the trial court in an Order dated
March 26, 1971, directed the sale set for March 27, 1971 postponed provided the
movant would pay the publication fees, otherwise the public auction would
continue at a date to be designated by the Sheriff. The movant did not pay the
publication fees hence there was no postponement of the public auction sale
since the condition precedent or suspensive condition (that of paying the publication
fees) was not complied with. 7 There was therefore no valid
postponement of the public auction sale. And there was no written consent of
debtor and creditor and neither was there any agreement in writing by the
parties authorizing the sheriff or the officer making the sale to adjourn the
same "to any date agreed upon in writing by the parties." 8
The public auction sale set for
March 27, 1971, should have been held considering that the said schedule
complied with all the requirements of law regarding a public sale, including
notice and publication. The officer may adjourn the sale from day to day if it
is necessary to do so for lack of time to complete the sale on the date fixed
in the notice. 9 But he may not adjourn to another date
unless with the written consent of the parties. 10 This was
precisely the point of the appellate court when it stressed the fact that there
was no written agreement between the debtor and the creditor to postpone the sale,
and in fact there was no sale held on the scheduled date 11
to warrant the application of Section 24, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of
that there was no valid postponement of the original date of the auction sale
on March 27, 1971, "then the alleged public auction sale on July 16, 1971
or close to four months after the original date of sale on March 27, 1971
without the proper notice and publication is null and void" as correctly
pointed out by the respondent court. 12
JOSE ABROGAR, et al. vs. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, et al., G.R. No.
L-67970 January 15, 1988