You are on page 1of 2

DELOS REYES vs.

RAMNANI TOPIC: RULE 15

JUNE 18, 2010


PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

In 1977, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of R. After a writ of execution was issued,
the sheriff conducted a public bidding and auction sale, where R emerged as the highest bidder.
A certificate of sale was then executed in her favor. In 1990, the certificate of sale was annotated
at the back of the TCT; however, the issuance of the certificate of sale was not accomplished
due to the demise of the sheriff. So in 2004:

PETITIONER COURT RESPONDENT


OPPOSITION RTC MOTION FOR THE
-Motion was not accompanied GRANTED ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER
by notice of hearing DIRECTING SHERIFF TO
- 1977 Decision can no longer EXECUTE THE FINAL
be executed; prescription CERTIFICATE OF SALE
IN HER FAVOR
MR RTC
DENIED
REVIEW via CERTIORARI CA
DENIED
-3day notice rule inapplicable
because the motion is a non-litigious
motion
-issuance of a final certificate of sale
not barred by prescription as 1977
Decision was already executed
through the levy and sale of the
property in 1978
PETITION FOR REVIEW
-same grounds as in P’s SC
Opposition DENIED

DISCUSSION:
1. Respondent is entitled to the issuance of the final certificate of sale as a matter of right
 1977 Decision was already enforced when the property was levied and sold in 1978
which is within the 5 yr period for the execution of a judgment by motion
 P failed to redeem the property within one year from the annotation of the certificate
of sale on TCT; thereafter, the sale became absolute
 Hence, issuance of a final certificate of sale is a mere formality and confirmation of the
title that is already vested in R
2. Subject Motion is a non-litigious motion, which is an exception to the general rule in Sec.
4, Rule 15, ROC
 Sec. 4, Rule 15, ROC: all written motions should be set for hearing
 EXC: non-litigious motions or motions which may be acted upon by the court
without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party

BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ MANANTAN | RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES | YAMO 3-EVE


DELOS REYES vs. RAMNANI TOPIC: RULE 15

 Since R is entitled to the issuance of the final certificate of sale as a matter of right, the
motion falls under the class of non-litigious motions

BAUTISTA │ ESTERON │ HIPOLITO │ MANANTAN | RAMIREZ │ PIOQUINTO │ SALES | YAMO 3-EVE