Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 156364 September 3, 2 !

"#CO$US $ERNH#RD HU%ST, petitioner, vs. PR $UI%DERS, INC., respondent. DECISION #USTRI#&M#RTINE', J.( Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 dated ctober !", #""# of the Court of $ppeals %C$& in C$'(.R. )P *o. +",-1. .he facts/ 0acobus Bernhard 1ulst %petitioner& and his spouse 2da 0ohanna 1ulst'3an 245eren %2da&, Dutch nationals, entered into a Contract to )ell with PR Builders, 2nc. %respondent&, for the purchase of a #1"'s6 7 residential unit in respondent8s townhouse pro4ect in Barangay *i9ugan, :aurel, Batangas. ;hen respondent failed to co7pl9 with its verbal pro7ise to co7plete the pro4ect b9 0une 1,,5, the spouses 1ulst filed before the 1ousing and :and <se Regulator9 Board %1:<RB& a co7plaint for rescission of contract with interest, da7ages and attorne98s fees, doc=eted as 1:RB Case *o. 23+'">11,+'"+1-. n $pril ##, 1,,>, 1:<RB $rbiter Ma. Perpetua ?. $6uino %1:<RB $rbiter& rendered a Decision# in favor of spouses 1ulst, the dispositive portion of which reads/ ;1@R@A R@, pre7ises considered, 4udg7ent is hereb9 rendered in favor of the co7plainant, rescinding the Contract to )ell and ordering respondent to/ 1& Rei7burse co7plainant the su7 of P!,1->,5""."", representing the purchase price paid b9 the co7plainants to P.R. Builders, plus interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent %1#B& per annu7 fro7 the ti7e co7plaint was filedC #& Pa9 co7plainant the su7 of P#,>,"""."" as actual da7agesC !& Pa9 co7plainant the su7 of P1"","""."" b9 wa9 of 7oral da7agesC

4& Pa9 co7plainant the su7 of P15","""."" as eDe7plar9 da7agesC 5& P5","""."" as attorne98s fees and for other litigation eDpensesC and +& Cost of suit. ) RD@R@D.!

Meanwhile, spouses 1ulst divorced. 2da assigned her rights over the purchased propert9 to petitioner.4 Aro7 then on, petitioner alone pursued the case. n $ugust #1, 1,,>, the 1:<RB $rbiter issued a ;rit of @Decution addressed to the @D' fficio )heriff of the Regional .rial Court of .anauan, Batangas directing the latter to eDecute its 4udg7ent.5 n $pril 1!, 1,,-, the @D' fficio )heriff proceeded to i7ple7ent the ;rit of @Decution. 1owever, upon co7plaint of respondent with the C$ on a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, the lev9 7ade b9 the )heriff was set aside, re6uiring the )heriff to lev9 first on respondent8s personal properties.+ )heriff 0ai7e B. 5aeta %)heriff& tried to i7ple7ent the writ as directed but the writ was returned unsatisfied.> n 0anuar9 #+, 1,,,, upon petitioner8s 7otion, the 1:<RB $rbiter issued an $lias ;rit of @Decution.n March #!, 1,,,, the )heriff levied on respondent8s 15 parcels of land covered b9 1! .ransfer Certificates of .itle %.C.&, in Barangay *i9ugan, :aurel, Batangas.1" 2n a *otice of )ale dated March #>, #""", the )heriff set the public auction of the levied properties on $pril #-, #""" at 1"/"" a.7..11 .wo da9s before the scheduled public auction or on $pril #+, #""", respondent filed an <rgent Motion to Euash ;rit of :ev9 with the 1:<RB on the ground that the )heriff 7ade an overlev9 since the aggregate appraised value of the levied properties at P+,5""."" per s6 7 is P-!,+1+,"""."", based on the $ppraisal Report1# of 1enr9 1unter Ba9ne Co., 2nc. dated Dece7ber 11, 1,,+, which is over and above the 4udg7ent award.1! $t 1"/15 a.7. of the scheduled auction date of $pril #-, #""", respondent8s counsel ob4ected to the conduct of the public auction on the ground that respondent8s <rgent Motion to Euash ;rit of :ev9 was pending resolution. $bsent an9 restraining order fro7 the 1:<RB, the )heriff proceeded to sell the 15 parcels of land. 1oll9 Properties Realt9 Corporation was the winning bidder for all 15 parcels of land for the total a7ount of P5,45",+5!.!!. .he su7 of P5,!1!,"4"."" was turned over to the petitioner in satisfaction of the 4udg7ent award after deducting the legal fees.14 $t 4/15 p.7. of the sa7e da9, while the )heriff was at the 1:<RB office to re7it the legal fees relative to the auction sale and to sub7it the Certificates of )ale15 for the signature of 1:<RB

Director Belen (. Ceni5a %1:<RB Director&, he received the rder dated $pril #-, #""" issued b9 the 1:<RB $rbiter to suspend the proceedings on the 7atter.1+ Aour 7onths later, or on $ugust #-, #""", the 1:<RB $rbiter and 1:<RB Director issued an rder setting aside the sheriff8s lev9 on respondent8s real properties,1> reasoning as follows/ ;hile we are not 7a=ing a ruling that the fair 7ar=et value of the levied properties is PhP+,5""."" per s6uare 7eter %or an aggregate value of PhP-!,+1+,""".""& as indicated in the 1unter Ba9nes $ppraisal Report, we definitel9 cannot agree with the position of the Co7plainants and the )heriff that the aggregate value of the 1#,-+4.""'s6uare 7eter levied properties is onl9 around PhP+,""","""."". .he disparit9 between the two valuations are FsicG so egregious that the )heriff should have loo=ed into the 7atter first before proceeding with the eDecution sale of the said properties, especiall9 when the auction sale proceedings was seasonabl9 ob4ected b9 Respondent8s counsel, $tt9. *oel Mingoa. 1owever, instead of resolving first the ob4ection ti7el9 posed b9 $tt9. Mingoa, )heriff 5aete totall9 disregarded the ob4ection raised and, posthaste, issued the corresponding Certificate of )ale even prior to the pa97ent of the legal fees %pars. > H -, )heriff8s Return&. ;hile we agree with the Co7plainants that what is 7aterial in an eDecution sale proceeding is the a7ount for which the properties were bidded and sold during the public auction and that, 7ere inade6uac9 of the price is not a sufficient ground to annul the sale, the court is 4ustified to intervene where the inade6uac9 of the price shoc=s the conscience %Barro5o vs. Macaraeg, -! Phil. !>-&. .he difference between PhP-!,+1+,"""."" and Php+,""","""."" is PhP>>,+1+,"""."" and it definitel9 invites our attention to loo= into the proceedings had especiall9 so when there was onl9 one bidder, the 1 ::? PR P@R.2@) R@$:.? C RP R$.2 * represented b9 Ma, Chandra Cacho %par. >, )heriff8s Return& and the auction sale proceedings was ti7el9 ob4ected b9 Respondent8s counsel %par. +, )heriff8s Return& due to the pendenc9 of the <rgent Motion to Euash the ;rit of :ev9 which was filed prior to the eDecution sale. $e)*+e), ,-.t *) .t *))/e *) 0ot t-e 1.2/e o3 t-e )/b4e5t propert*e) .) +eterm*0e+ +/r*06 t-e ./5t*o0 ).2e, b/t t-e +eterm*0.t*o0 o3 t-e 1.2/e o3 t-e propert*e) 2e1*e+ /po0 b7 t-e S-er*33 t.8*06 *0to 5o0)*+er.t*o0 Se5t*o0 9:b; o3 t-e 199! R/2e) o3 C*1*2 Pro5e+/re < < <. DDDD 2t is ver9 clear fro7 the foregoing that, even during lev9, the )heriff has to consider the fair 7ar=et value of the properties levied upon to deter7ine whether the9 are sufficient to satisf9 the 4udg7ent, and an9 lev9 in eDcess of the 4udg7ent award is void %Buan v. Court of $ppeals, #!5 )CR$ 4#4&. D D D D1- %@7phasis supplied&. .he dispositive portion of the rder reads/

;1@R@A R@, the lev9 on the sub4ect properties 7ade b9 the @D' fficio )heriff of the R.C of .anauan, Batangas, is hereb9 )@. $)2D@ and the said )heriff is hereb9 directed to lev9 instead Respondent8s real properties that are reasonabl9 sufficient to enforce its final and eDecutor9 4udg7ent, this ti7e, ta=ing into consideration not onl9 the value of the properties as indicated in their respective taD declarations, but also all the other deter7inants at arriving at a fair 7ar=et value, na7el9/ the cost of ac6uisition, the current value of li=e properties, its actual or potential uses, and in the particular case of lands, their si5e, shape or location, and the taD declarations thereon. ) RD@R@D.1,

$ 7otion for reconsideration being a prohibited pleading under )ection 1%h&, Rule 23 of the 1,,+ 1:<RB Rules and Procedure, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the C$ on )epte7ber #>, #""". n ctober !", #""#, the C$ rendered herein assailed Decision#" dis7issing the petition. .he C$ held that petitioner8s insistence that Barrozo v. Macaraeg#1 does not appl9 since said case stated that Iwhen there is a right to redee7 inade6uac9 of price should not be 7aterialI holds no water as what is obtaining in this case is not I7ere inade6uac9,I but an inade6uac9 that shoc=s the sensesC that Buan v. Court of Appeals## properl9 applies since the 6uestioned lev9 covered 15 parcels of land posited to have an aggregate value of P-!,+1+,"""."" which shoc=ingl9 eDceeded the 4udg7ent debt of onl9 around P+,""","""."". ;ithout filing a 7otion for reconsideration,#! petitioner too= the present recourse on the sole ground that/ .1@ 1 * R$B:@ C <R. A $PP@$:) (R$3@:? @RR@D 2* $AA2RM2*( .1@ $RB2.@R8) RD@R )@..2*( $)2D@ .1@ :@3? M$D@ B? .1@ )1@R2AA * .1@ )<B0@C. PR P@R.2@).#4 Before resolving the 6uestion whether the C$ erred in affir7ing the rder of the 1:<RB setting aside the lev9 7ade b9 the sheriff, it behooves this Court to address a 7atter of public and national i7portance which co7pletel9 escaped the attention of the 1:<RB $rbiter and the C$/ petitioner and his wife are foreign nationals who are dis6ualified under the Constitution fro7 owning real propert9 in their na7es. )ection > of $rticle J22 of the 1,-> Constitution provides/ )ec. >. )ave in cases of hereditar9 succession, 0o pr*1.te 2.0+) )-.22 be tr.0)3erre+ or 5o01e7e+ e<5ept to *0+*1*+/.2), corporations, or associations =/.2*3*e+ to .5=/*re or -o2+ 2.0+) o3 t-e p/b2*5 +om.*0. %@7phasis supplied&. .he capacit9 to ac6uire private land is 7ade dependent upon the capacit9 to ac6uire or hold lands of the public do7ain. Private land 7a9 be transferred or conve9ed onl9 to individuals or entities I6ualified to ac6uire lands of the public do7ain.I .he 1,-> Constitution reserved the right to participate in the disposition, eDploitation, develop7ent and utili5ation of lands of the

public do7ain for Ailipino citi5ens#5 or corporations at least +" percent of the capital of which is owned b9 Ailipinos.#+ $liens, whether individuals or corporations, have been dis6ualified fro7 ac6uiring public landsC hence, the9 have also been dis6ualified fro7 ac6uiring private lands.#> )ince petitioner and his wife, being Dutch nationals, are proscribed under the Constitution fro7 ac6uiring and owning real propert9, it is une6uivocal that the Contract to )ell entered into b9 petitioner together with his wife and respondent is void. <nder $rticle 14", %1& and %>& of the Civil Code, all contracts whose cause, ob4ect or purpose is contrar9 to law or public polic9 and those eDpressl9 prohibited or declared void b9 law are ineDistent and void fro7 the beginning. $rticle 141" of the sa7e Code provides that the action or defense for the declaration of the ineDistence of a contract does not prescribe. $ void contract is e6uivalent to nothingC it produces no civil effect.#- 2t does not create, 7odif9 or eDtinguish a 4uridical relation.#, (enerall9, parties to a void agree7ent cannot eDpect the aid of the lawC the courts leave the7 as the9 are, because the9 are dee7ed in pari delicto or Iin e6ual fault.I!" 2n pari delicto is Ia universal doctrine which holds that no action arises, in e6uit9 or at law, fro7 an illegal contractC no suit can be 7aintained for its specific perfor7ance, or to recover the propert9 agreed to be sold or delivered, or the 7one9 agreed to be paid, or da7ages for its violationC and where the parties are in pari delicto, no affir7ative relief of an9 =ind will be given to one against the other.I!1 .his rule, however, is sub4ect to eDceptions!# that per7it the return of that which 7a9 have been given under a void contract to/ %a& the innocent part9 %$rts. 1411'141#, Civil Code&C!! %b& the debtor who pa9s usurious interest %$rt. 141!, Civil Code&C!4 :5; t-e p.rt7 rep/+*.t*06 t-e 1o*+ 5o0tr.5t be3ore t-e *22e6.2 p/rpo)e *) .55omp2*)-e+ or be3ore +.m.6e *) 5./)e+ to . t-*r+ per)o0 .0+ *3 p/b2*5 *0tere)t *) )/b)er1e+ b7 .22o,*06 re5o1er7 :#rt. 1414, C*1*2 Co+e;>!5 %d& the incapacitated part9 if the interest of 4ustice so de7ands %$rt. 1415, Civil Code&C!+ %e& the part9 for whose protection the prohibition b9 law is intended if the agree7ent is not illegal per se but 7erel9 prohibited and if public polic9 would be enhanced b9 per7itting recover9 %$rt. 141+, Civil Code&C!> and %f& the part9 for whose benefit the law has been intended such as in price ceiling laws %$rt. 141>, Civil Code&!- and labor laws %$rts. 141-'141,, Civil Code&.!, 2t is significant to note that the agree7ent eDecuted b9 the parties in this case is a Contract to )ell and not a contract of sale. $ distinction between the two is 7aterial in the deter7ination of when ownership is dee7ed to have been transferred to the bu9er or vendee and, ulti7atel9, the resolution of the 6uestion on whether the constitutional proscription has been breached. 2n a contract of sale, the title passes to the bu9er upon the deliver9 of the thing sold. .he vendor has lost and cannot recover the ownership of the propert9 until and unless the contract of sale is itself resolved and set aside.4" n the other hand, a contract to sell is a=in to a conditional sale where the efficac9 or obligator9 force of the vendor8s obligation to transfer title is subordinated to the happening of a future and uncertain event, so that if the suspensive condition does not ta=e place, the parties would stand as if the conditional obligation had never eDisted.41 2n other words, in a contract to sell, the prospective seller agrees to transfer ownership of the propert9 to the bu9er upon the happening of an event, which nor7all9 is the full pa97ent of the purchase price. But even upon the fulfill7ent of the suspensive condition, ownership does not auto7aticall9

transfer to the bu9er. .he prospective seller still has to conve9 title to the prospective bu9er b9 eDecuting a contract of absolute sale.4# )ince the contract involved here is a Contract to )ell, ownership has not 9et transferred to the petitioner when he filed the suit for rescission. ;hile the intent to circu7vent the constitutional proscription on aliens owning real propert9 was evident b9 virtue of the eDecution of the Contract to )ell, such violation of the law did not 7ateriali5e because petitioner caused the rescission of the contract before the eDecution of the final deed transferring ownership. .hus, eDception %c& finds application in this case. <nder $rticle 1414, one who repudiates the agree7ent and de7ands his 7one9 before the illegal act has ta=en place is entitled to recover. Petitioner is therefore entitled to recover what he has paid, although the basis of his clai7 for rescission, which was granted b9 the 1:<RB, was not the fact that he is not allowed to ac6uire private land under the Philippine Constitution. But petitioner is entitled to the recover9 onl9 of the a7ount of P!,1->,5""."", representing the purchase price paid to respondent. *o da7ages 7a9 be recovered on the basis of a void contractC being noneDistent, the agree7ent produces no 4uridical tie between the parties involved.4! Aurther, petitioner is not entitled to actual as well as interests thereon,44 7oral and eDe7plar9 da7ages and attorne98s fees. .he Court ta=es into consideration the fact that the 1:<RB Decision dated $pril ##, 1,,> has long been final and eDecutor9. *othing is 7ore settled in the law than that a decision that has ac6uired finalit9 beco7es i77utable and unalterable and 7a9 no longer be 7odified in an9 respect even if the 7odification is 7eant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it was 7ade b9 the court that rendered it or b9 the highest court of the land.45 .he onl9 recogni5ed eDceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so'called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no pre4udice to an9 part9, void 4udg7ents, and whenever circu7stances transpire after the finalit9 of the decision rendering its eDecution un4ust and ine6uitable.4+ *one of the eDceptions is present in this case. .he 1:<RB decision cannot be considered a void 4udg7ent, as it was rendered b9 a tribunal with 4urisdiction over the sub4ect 7atter of the co7plaint.4> 2neluctabl9, the 1:<RB Decision resulted in the un4ust enrich7ent of petitioner at the eDpense of respondent. Petitioner received 7ore than what he is entitled to recover under the circu7stances. $rticle ## of the Civil Code which e7bodies the 7aDi7, nemo ex alterius incommode debet lecupletari %no 7an ought to be 7ade rich out of another8s in4ur9&, states/ $rt. ##. @ver9 person who through an act of perfor7ance b9 another, or an9 other 7eans, ac6uires or co7es into possession of so7ething at the eDpense of the latter without 4ust or legal ground, shall return the sa7e to hi7. .he above'6uoted article is part of the chapter of the Civil Code on 1u7an Relations, the provisions of which were for7ulated as basic principles to be observed for the rightful relationship between hu7an beings and for the stabilit9 of the social orderC designed to indicate certain nor7s that spring fro7 the fountain of good conscienceC guides for hu7an conduct that

should run as golden threads through societ9 to the end that law 7a9 approach its supre7e ideal which is the swa9 and do7inance of 4ustice.4- .here is un4ust enrich7ent when a person un4ustl9 retains a benefit at the loss of another, or when a person retains 7one9 or propert9 of another against the funda7ental principles of 4ustice, e6uit9 and good conscience.4, $ sense of 4ustice and fairness de7ands that petitioner should not be allowed to benefit fro7 his act of entering into a contract to sell that violates the constitutional proscription. .his is not a case of e6uit9 overruling or supplanting a positive provision of law or 4udicial rule. Rather, e6uit9 is eDercised in this case Ias the co7ple7ent of legal 4urisdiction FthatG see=s to reach and to co7plete 4ustice where courts of law, through the infleDibilit9 of their rules and want of power to adapt their 4udg7ents to the special circu7stances of cases, are inco7petent to do so.I5" .he purpose of the eDercise of e6uit9 4urisdiction in this case is to prevent un4ust enrich7ent and to ensure restitution. @6uit9 4urisdiction ai7s to do co7plete 4ustice in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its 4udg7ents to the special circu7stances of a case because of the infleDibilit9 of its statutor9 or legal 4urisdiction.51 .he sheriff delivered to petitioner the a7ount of P5,!1!,"4"."" representing the net proceeds %bidded a7ount is P5,45",+5!.!!& of the auction sale after deducting the legal fees in the a7ount of P1!>,+1!.!!.5# Petitioner is onl9 entitled to P!,1->,5""."", the a7ount of the purchase price of the real propert9 paid b9 petitioner to respondent under the Contract to )ell. .hus, the Court in the eDercise of its e6uit9 4urisdiction 7a9 validl9 order petitioner to return the eDcess a7ount of P#,1#5,54"."". .he Court shall now proceed to resolve the single issue raised in the present petition/ whether the C$ seriousl9 erred in affir7ing the 1:<RB rder setting aside the lev9 7ade b9 the )heriff on the sub4ect properties. Petitioner avers that the 1:<RB $rbiter and Director had no factual basis for pegging the fair 7ar=et value of the levied properties at P+,5""."" per s6 7 or P-!,+1+,""".""C that reliance on the appraisal report was 7isplaced since the appraisal was based on the value of land in neighboring developed subdivisions and on the assu7ption that the residential unit appraised had alread9 been builtC that the )heriff need not deter7ine the fair 7ar=et value of the sub4ect properties before lev9ing on the sa7e since what is 7aterial is the a7ount for which the properties were bidded and sold during the public auctionC that the pendenc9 of an9 7otion is not a valid ground for the )heriff to suspend the eDecution proceedings and, b9 itself, does not have the effect of restraining the )heriff fro7 proceeding with the eDecution. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that while it is true that the 1:<RB $rbiter and Director did not categoricall9 state the eDact value of the levied properties, said properties cannot 4ust a7ount to P+,""",""".""C that the 1:<RB $rbiter and Director correctl9 held that the value indicated in the taD declaration is not the sole deter7inant of the value of the propert9. .he petition is i7pressed with 7erit.

2f the 4udg7ent is for 7one9, the sheriff or other authori5ed officer 7ust eDecute the sa7e pursuant to the provisions of )ection ,, Rule !, of the Revised Rules of Court, viz/ )ec. ,. Execution of judgments for money, ho enforced. K %a& !mmediate payment on demand. ' .he officer shall enforce an eDecution of a 4udg7ent for 7one9 b9 de7anding fro7 the 4udg7ent obligor the i77ediate pa97ent of the full a7ount stated in the writ of eDecution and all lawful fees. D D D %b& "atisfaction by levy. ' 2f the 4udg7ent obligor cannot pa9 all or part of the obligation in cash, certified ban= chec= or other 7ode of pa97ent acceptable to the 4udg7ent obligee, t-e o33*5er )-.22 2e17 /po0 t-e propert*e) o3 t-e 4/+6me0t ob2*6or o3 e1er7 8*0+ .0+ 0.t/re ,-.t)oe1er ,-*5- m.7 be +*)po)e+ o3 3or 1.2/e .0+ 0ot ot-er,*)e e<empt 3rom e<e5/t*o0, giving the latter the option to i77ediatel9 choose which propert9 or part thereof 7a9 be levied upon, sufficient to satisf9 the 4udg7ent. 2f the 4udg7ent obligor does not eDercise the option, the officer shall first lev9 on the personal properties, if an9, and then on the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to answer for the 4udg7ent. T-e )-er*33 )-.22 )e22 o027 . )/33*5*e0t port*o0 o3 t-e per)o0.2 or re.2 propert7 o3 t-e 4/+6me0t ob2*6or ,-*5- -.) bee0 2e1*e+ /po0. ?-e0 t-ere *) more propert7 o3 t-e 4/+6me0t ob2*6or t-.0 *) )/33*5*e0t to ).t*)37 t-e 4/+6me0t .0+ 2.,3/2 3ee), -e m/)t )e22 o027 )o m/5- o3 t-e per)o0.2 or re.2 propert7 .) *) )/33*5*e0t to ).t*)37 t-e 4/+6me0t .0+ 2.,3/2 3ee). Re.2 propert7, stoc=s, shares, debts, credits, and other personal propert9, or an9 interest in either real or personal propert9, m.7 be 2e1*e+ /po0 *0 2*8e m.00er .0+ ,*t- 2*8e e33e5t .) /0+er . ,r*t o3 .tt.5-me0t %@7phasis supplied&.5! .hus, under Rule !,, in eDecuting a 7one9 4udg7ent against the propert9 of the 4udg7ent debtor, the sheriff shall lev9 on all propert9 belonging to the 4udg7ent debtor as is a7pl9 sufficient to satisf9 the 4udg7ent and costs, and sell the sa7e pa9ing to the 4udg7ent creditor so 7uch of the proceeds as will satisf9 the a7ount of the 4udg7ent debt and costs. $n9 eDcess in the proceeds shall be delivered to the 4udg7ent debtor unless otherwise directed b9 the 4udg7ent or order of the court.54 Clearl9, there are two stages in the eDecution of 7one9 4udg7ents. Airst, the lev9 and then the eDecution sale. :ev9 has been defined as the act or acts b9 which an officer sets apart or appropriates a part or the whole of a 4udg7ent debtor8s propert9 for the purpose of satisf9ing the co77and of the writ of eDecution.55 .he ob4ect of a lev9 is to ta=e propert9 into the custod9 of the law, and thereb9 render it liable to the lien of the eDecution, and put it out of the power of the 4udg7ent debtor to divert it to an9 other use or purpose.5+

n the other hand, an eDecution sale is a sale b9 a sheriff or other 7inisterial officer under the authorit9 of a writ of eDecution of the levied propert9 of the debtor.5> 2n the present case, the 1:<RB $rbiter and Director gravel9 abused their discretion in setting aside the lev9 conducted b9 the )heriff for the reason that the auction sale conducted b9 the sheriff rendered 7oot and acade7ic the 7otion to 6uash the lev9. .he 1:<RB $rbiter lost 4urisdiction to act on the 7otion to 6uash the lev9 b9 virtue of the consu77ation of the auction sale. $bsent an9 order fro7 the 1:<RB suspending the auction sale, the sheriff rightfull9 proceeded with the auction sale. .he winning bidder had alread9 paid the winning bid. .he legal fees had alread9 been re7itted to the 1:<RB. .he 4udg7ent award had alread9 been turned over to the 4udg7ent creditor. ;hat was left to be done was onl9 the issuance of the corresponding certificates of sale to the winning bidder. 2n fact, onl9 the signature of the 1:<RB Director for that purpose was needed5- K a purel9 7inisterial act. $ purel9 7inisterial act or dut9 is one which an officer or tribunal perfor7s in a given state of facts, in a prescribed 7anner, in obedience to the 7andate of a legal authorit9, without regard for or the eDercise of his own 4udg7ent upon the propriet9 or i7propriet9 of the act done. 2f the law i7poses a dut9 upon a public officer and gives hi7 the right to decide how or when the dut9 shall be perfor7ed, such dut9 is discretionar9 and not 7inisterial. .he dut9 is 7inisterial onl9 when the discharge of the sa7e re6uires neither the eDercise of official discretion nor 4udg7ent.5, 2n the present case, all the re6uire7ents of auction sale under the Rules have been full9 co7plied with to warrant the issuance of the corresponding certificates of sale. $nd even if the Court should go into the 7erits of the assailed rder, the petition is 7eritorious on the following grounds/ #irstly, the reliance of the 1:<RB $rbiter and Director, as well as the C$, on Barrozo v. Macaraeg+" and Buan v. Court of Appeals+1 is 7isplaced. .he 1:<RB and the C$ 7isconstrued the Court8s pronounce7ents in Barrozo. Barrozo involved a 4udg7ent debtor who wanted to repurchase properties sold at eDecution be9ond the one'9ear rede7ption period. .he state7ent of the Court in Barrozo, that Ionl9 where such inade6uac9 shoc=s the conscience the courts will intervene,I is at best a 7ere obiter dictum. .his declaration should be ta=en in the conteDt of the other declarations of the Court in Barrozo, to wit/ $nother point raised b9 appellant is that the price paid at the auction sale was so inade6uate as to shoc= the conscience of the court. )upposing that this issue is open even after the one'9ear period has eDpired and after the properties have passed into the hands of third persons who 7a9 have paid a price higher than the auction sale 7one9, the first thing to consider is that the stipulation contains no state7ent of the reasonable value of the propertiesC and although defendant8 answer avers that the assessed value was P!,,+" it also avers that their real 7ar=et value was P#,""" onl9. #07,.7, mere *0.+e=/.57 o3 pr*5e @ ,-*5- ,.) t-e 5omp2.*0tA .22e6.t*o0 @ *) 0ot )/33*5*e0t 6ro/0+ to .00/2 t-e ).2e. It *) o027 ,-ere )/5- *0.+e=/.57 )-o58) t-e 5o0)5*e05e t-.t t-e 5o/rt) ,*22 *0ter1e0e. D D D $nother consideration is that the assessed value being P!,,+" and the

purchase price being in effect P1,-+4 %P4+4 sale price plus P1,4"" 7ortgage lien which had to be discharged& the conscience is not shoc=ed upon eDa7ining the prices paid in the sales in $ational Ban% v. &onzales, 45 Phil., +,! and &uerrero v. &uerrero, 5> Phil., 445, sales which were left undisturbed b9 this Court. Aurther7ore, ,-ere t-ere *) t-e r*6-t to re+eem K as in this case K *0.+e=/.57 o3 pr*5e )-o/2+ 0ot be m.ter*.2 be5./)e t-e 4/+6me0t +ebtor m.7 re&.5=/*re t-e propert7 or e2)e )e22 -*) r*6-t to re+eem .0+ t-/) re5o1er .07 2o)) -e 52.*m) to -.1e )/33ere+ b7 re.)o0 o3 t-e pr*5e obt.*0e+ .t t-e e<e5/t*o0 ).2e. D D D D %@7phasis supplied&.+# 2n other words, gross inade6uac9 of price does not nullif9 an eDecution sale. 2n an ordinar9 sale, for reason of e6uit9, a transaction 7a9 be invalidated on the ground of inade6uac9 of price, or when such inade6uac9 shoc=s one8s conscience as to 4ustif9 the courts to interfereC such does not follow when the law gives the owner the right to redee7 as when a sale is 7ade at public auction,+! upon the theor9 that the lesser the price, the easier it is for the owner to effect rede7ption.+4 ;hen there is a right to redee7, inade6uac9 of price should not be 7aterial because the 4udg7ent debtor 7a9 re'ac6uire the propert9 or else sell his right to redee7 and thus recover an9 loss he clai7s to have suffered b9 reason of the price obtained at the eDecution sale.+5 .hus, respondent stood to gain rather than be har7ed b9 the low sale value of the auctioned properties because it possesses the right of rede7ption. More i7portantl9, the sub4ect 7atter in Barrozo is the auction sale, not the lev9 7ade b9 the )heriff. .he Court does not sanction the piece7eal interpretation of a decision. .o get the true intent and 7eaning of a decision, no specific portion thereof should be isolated and resorted to, but the decision 7ust be considered in its entiret9. ++ $s regards Buan, it is cast under an entirel9 different factual 7ilieu. 2t involved the lev9 on two parcels of land owned b9 the 4udg7ent debtorC and the sale at public auction of one was sufficient to full9 satisf9 the 4udg7ent, such that the lev9 and atte7pted eDecution of the second parcel of land was declared void for being in eDcess of and be9ond the original 4udg7ent award granted in favor of the 4udg7ent creditor. 2n the present case, the )heriff co7plied with the 7andate of )ection ,, Rule !, of the Revised Rules of Court, to Isell onl9 a sufficient portionI of the levied properties Ias is sufficient to satisf9 the 4udg7ent and the lawful fees.I @ach of the 15 levied properties was successivel9 bidded upon and sold, one after the other until the 4udg7ent debt and the lawful fees were full9 satisfied. 1oll9 Properties Realt9 Corporation successivel9 bidded upon and bought each of the levied properties for the total a7ount of P5,45",+5!.!! in full satisfaction of the 4udg7ent award and legal fees.+> "econdly, the Rules of Court do not re6uire that the value of the propert9 levied be eDactl9 the sa7e as the 4udg7ent debtC it can be less or 7ore than the a7ount of debt. .his is the contingenc9 addressed b9 )ection ,, Rule !, of the Rules of Court. 2n the lev9 of propert9, the )heriff does not deter7ine the eDact valuation of the levied propert9. <nder )ection ,, Rule !,,

in con4unction with )ection >, Rule 5> of the Rules of Court, the sheriff is re6uired to do onl9 two specific things to effect a lev9 upon a realt9/ %a& file with the register of deeds a cop9 of the order of eDecution, together with the description of the levied propert9 and notice of eDecutionC and %b& leave with the occupant of the propert9 cop9 of the sa7e order, description and notice.+Records do not show that respondent alleged non'co7pliance b9 the )heriff of said re6uisites. 'hirdly, in deter7ining what a7ount of propert9 is sufficient out of which to secure satisfaction of the eDecution, the )heriff is left to his own 4udg7ent. 1e 7a9 eDercise a reasonable discretion, and 7ust eDercise the care which a reasonabl9 prudent person would eDercise under li=e conditions and circu7stances, endeavoring on the one hand to obtain sufficient propert9 to satisf9 the purposes of the writ, and on the other hand not to 7a=e an unreasonable and unnecessar9 lev9.+, Because it is i7possible to =now the precise 6uantit9 of land or other propert9 necessar9 to satisf9 an eDecution, the )heriff should be allowed a reasonable 7argin between the value of the propert9 levied upon and the a7ount of the eDecutionC the fact that the )heriff levies upon a little 7ore than is necessar9 to satisf9 the eDecution does not render his actions i7proper.>" )ection ,, Rule !,, provides ade6uate safeguards against eDcessive lev9ing. .he )heriff is 7andated to sell so 7uch onl9 of such real propert9 as is sufficient to satisf9 the 4udg7ent and lawful fees. 2n the absence of a restraining order, no error, 7uch less abuse of discretion, can be i7puted to the )heriff in proceeding with the auction sale despite the pending 7otion to 6uash the lev9 filed b9 the respondents with the 1:<RB. 2t is ele7entar9 that sheriffs, as officers charged with the delicate tas= of the enforce7ent andLor i7ple7entation of 4udg7ents, 7ust, in the absence of a restraining order, act with considerable dispatch so as not to undul9 dela9 the ad7inistration of 4usticeC otherwise, the decisions, orders, or other processes of the courts of 4ustice and the li=e would be futile.>1 2t is not within the 4urisdiction of the )heriff to consider, 7uch less resolve, respondent8s ob4ection to the continuation of the conduct of the auction sale. .he )heriff has no authorit9, on his own, to suspend the auction sale. 1is dut9 being 7inisterial, he has no discretion to postpone the conduct of the auction sale. #inally, one who attac=s a lev9 on the ground of eDcessiveness carries the burden of sustaining that contention.># 2n the deter7ination of whether a lev9 of eDecution is eDcessive, it is proper to ta=e into consideration encu7brances upon the propert9, as well as the fact that a forced sale usuall9 results in a sacrificeC that is, the price de7anded for the propert9 upon a private sale is not the standard for deter7ining the eDcessiveness of the lev9. >! 1ere, the 1:<RB $rbiter and Director had no sufficient factual basis to deter7ine the value of the levied propert9. Respondent onl9 sub7itted an $ppraisal Report, based 7erel9 on sur7ises. .he Report was based on the pro4ected value of the townhouse pro4ect after it shall have been full9 developed, that is, on the assu7ption that the residential units appraised had alread9 been built. .he $ppraiser in fact 7ade this 6ualification in its $ppraisal Report/ IFtGhe propert9 sub4ect of this appraisal has not been constructed. .he basis of the appraiser is on the eDisting 7odel units.I>4 )ince it is undisputed that the townhouse pro4ect did not push through, the pro4ected value did not beco7e a realit9. .hus, the appraisal value cannot be e6uated with the fair 7ar=et value. .he $ppraisal Report is not the best proof to accuratel9 show the value of the levied properties as it is clearl9 self'serving.

.herefore, the rder dated $ugust #-, #""" of 1:<RB $rbiter $6uino and Director Ceni5a in 1:RB Case *o. 23+'">11,+'"+1- which set aside the sheriff8s lev9 on respondent8s real properties, was clearl9 issued with grave abuse of discretion. .he C$ erred in affir7ing said rder. ?HEREBORE, the instant petition is GR#NTED. .he Decision dated ctober !", #""# of the Court of $ppeals in C$'(.R. )P *o. +",-1 is REVERSED and SET #SIDE. .he rder dated $ugust #-, #""" of 1:<RB $rbiter Ma. Perpetua ?. $6uino and Director Belen (. Ceni5a in 1:RB Case *o. 23+'">11,+'"+1- is declared NU%% and VOID. 1:<RB $rbiter $6uino and Director Ceni5a are directed to issue the corresponding certificates of sale in favor of the winning bidder, 1oll9 Properties Realt9 Corporation. Petitioner is ordered to return to respondent the a7ount of P#,1#5,54"."", without interest, in eDcess of the proceeds of the auction sale delivered to petitioner. $fter the finalit9 of herein 4udg7ent, the a7ount of P#,1#5,54"."" shall earn +B interest until full9 paid. SO ORDERED. (nares)"antiago, Chairperson, Chico)$azario, $achura, *eyes, ++., concur.