June 10, 2013 G.R. No. L-40095 July 29, 1985 AMPARO F. LIM and RODRIGO C.

LIM, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, EUGENIO LAMBERANG and THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, respondents. FACTS: It is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by spouses LIM assailing the Decision of the Appellate Court in CA-G.R. No. 35006-R. Based on records, Amparo LIM one of the petitioner, acquired a twenty one (21) hectares property, comprising of two parcel, at Brgy. Luna, Claveria, Misamis Oriental from Catalino ALEMAN on January 19, 1959, through a foreclosure for nonpayment of mortgage. The first and second parcel comprising of 11 hectares and 10 hectares, was mortgage to LIM by ALEMAN on February 1, 1957 and March 3, 1960, respectively. Because of nonpayment, LIM prompted to initiate a foreclosure proceeding against ALEMAN before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental. On January 19, 1959, the court rendered judgment, foreclosing the property in favor of LIM. However, on February 29, 1959, the disputed property was levied and sold at a public auction by the Provincial Sheriff of Misamis Oriental on order of the MTC, Cagayan de Oro. Eugenio LAMBERANG, being the highest bidder, won and took possession of the property. Thereafter, a corresponding certificate of sale was issued in his favor. On February 27, 1960, LIM through the sheriff, offered redemption but LAMBERANG objected. Thus, on March 14, 1960 and April 11, 1960 respectively, the court finally issued a certificate of conveyance and writ of possession to LAMBERANG. On October 31, 1960, the petitioners (spouses LIM) seek final judicial remedy, by filing a case against the Sheriff for the annulment of execution of sale. It was alleged, that the disputed property cannot be made the subject of any levy and execution since it was still a public agricultural land at the time of the sale. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring that the Disputed Property, having been a public land, could not be subjected to a levy and sale at the public auction. As intervenor, LAMBERANG brought the case on appeal to the CA, which reversed the judgment. ISSUE: Whether or not the auction sale of the Disputed Property was valid? RULING: The court gave weight and credence to the petition of spouses LIM. Two important dates were given full attention by the Court; firstly, the mortgage date which would have otherwise appear as January 19,1959 instead of January 17, 1957 and secondly, the public auction initiated by the Deputy Sheriff of Misamis Oriental on February 28, 1959,

levying and selling the two parcels of land in question. The court declared that when the Disputed Property was sold at public auction on February 28, 1959, ALEMAN, as judgment debtor, was no longer the owner of the Disputed Property, the ownership having been acquired by LIM on January 19, 1959 trough a foreclosure. Therefore, the sale to LAMBERANG could not have been valid as a result. At the very least, LIM having acquired substantial rights over the Disputed Property by virtue of the foreclosure, should have been allowed to redeem within the one year period. Indisputably, LIM offered to do it on February 27, 1960 counting from the one year starting February 28, 1959 during the auction sale. Also, the mortgage in favor of LIM was executed on February 1, 1957, while the judgment against ALEMAN was rendered on June 18, 1956. The mortgage was then subsequent to the judgment. In this wise, the court declared that it is not necessary to rule on whether or not the Disputed Property had already become private property on the date of the public auction. What is important is the "rights" acquired over the Disputed Property, irrespective of whether the physical property was or was not a private property. Petitioners motion was upheld and Court of First Instance Order was reinstated, setting aside the decision of C.A. in CAG.R. No. 35006-R.