GR No.

156364 September 3, 2007

Jacobus Bernhard Hulst, petitioner vs

PR Builders Inc., respondent
FACTS:

● Petitioner and his wife, Johanna Hulst - Van, entered into a Contract to Sell nith the
respondent to purchase a 210-sqm residential unit in Barangay Niugan, Laurel, Batangas;

● The respondent failed to comply with the verbal agreement to complete the project by

June 1995, hence the petitioner's complaint filed to the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB);

● The HLURB arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners, granted with interests,
damages, and attorney's fees in forms of;
● P 3,187,500.00 for the purchase price paid by the complainants to PR Builders Inc., plus
interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the time the complaint was
filed;
● P 297,000.00 for actual damages;

● P 100,000.00 for moral damages;

● P 150,000.00 for exemplary damages;

● P 50,000.00 for attorney's fees and other litigation expenses;

● Cost of suit;

● The HLURB arbiter issued a Writ of Execution on August 21, 1997, directing the Ex
Officio Sheriff of RTC Tanauan, Batangas to execute the judgment. However, as the
latter proceeds to implement the Writ of Execution on April 13, 1998, the respondent
filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, setting aside the levy made by the Sheriff
and was required to levy first on the respondent's personal properties. Hence, the Writ
was returned unsatisfied;

● Upon the petitioner's motion on January 26, 1999, the HLURB arbiter then issued an
Alias Writ of Execution, and the Sheriff levied on the respondent's 15 parcels of land
under 13 certificates of Title in Barangay Niyugan, Laurel, Batangas;

● The Sheriff set an auction for the levied properties on April 28, 2000, and sold 15 parcels
of land in the total amount of P 5,450,653.33. The sum of P 5,313,040.00 was turned
over to the petitioner satisfying the judgment after deductions of the legal fees;

● The respondent filed an Urgent Motion to Quash Writ of Levy two days prior the auction
on the ground that the Sheriff made an over levy since the aggregated appraised value of
the properties is at P 6, 500.00 per square meter and is valued at P 83,616,000.00, which
is above the judgment award;

● Four months after the auction, the HLURB Arbiter and the HLURB Director issued an
Order setting aside the levy of the Sheriff to the respondent's properties. Stating that the
difference between the [P 83,616,000.00] appraised value of the levied properties and [P
the selling value is P 77,616,000.00 which caught the former's attention to
look at the proceeding especially since there was only one (1) bidder.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Sheriff made an overlevy in valuing the levied properties in the
auction;
2. Whether or not the CA erred in setting aside the levy made by the Sheriff;
HELD:
1. No. Because, during the auction, it was clear that the Sheriff has to make the sole
decision and consider the market value of the levied properties, whether they are
sufficient to satisfy the judgment, hence, any levy in excess of the judgment award is
null and void.
2. Yes. Because, under Rule 39 of the Revised Rule of Court, (a) The officer shall enforce
an execution of judgment for money by demanding from the judgment obligor the
immediate payment with the full amount stated in the Writ of the Execution and all
lawful fees; in which the Sheriff complied with. Furthermore, the Court does not require
the value of the levied property to be the same as the judgment debt.
In conjunction with Section 7, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, the sheriff is required to do
only two specific things to effect a levy upon a realty: (a) file with the register of deeds a
copy of the order of execution, together with the description of the levied property and
notice of execution; and (b) leave with the occupant of the property copy of the same
order, description and notice. Records do not show that respondent alleged non-
compliance by the Sheriff of said requisites.