MARCELO R. SORIANO, petitioner, vs.

SPOUSES RICARDO and ROSALINA

GALIT, respondents.
[G.R. No. 156295. September 23, 2003]

FACTS:
Respondent Ricardo Galit contracted a loan from petitioner Marcelo
Soriano, in the total sum of P480,000.00, evidenced by four promissory notes
in the amount of P120,000.00 each dated August 2, 1996; August 15, 1996;
September 4, 1996 and September 14, 1996. This loan was secured by a real
estate mortgage over a parcel of land. After he failed to pay his obligation,
Soriano filed a complaint for sum of money against him with the Regional
Trial Court of Balanga City.
Respondents, the Spouses Ricardo and Rosalina Galit, failed to file their
answer. Hence, upon motion of Marcelo Soriano, the trial court declared the
spouses in default and proceeded to receive evidence for petitioner Soriano
ex parte.
On July 7, 1997, the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Branch 1
rendered judgment in favor of petitioner Soriano
At the sale of the above-enumerated properties at public auction held
on December 23, 1998, petitioner was the highest and only bidder with a bid
price of P483,000.00. Accordingly, on February 4, 1999, Deputy Sherif
Robles issued a Certificate of Sale of Execution of Real Property.
Court of Appeals however nullified the writ of possession because it
included a parcel of land which was not among those explicitly enumerated
in the Certificate of Sale issued by the Deputy Sherif, but on which stand the
immovables covered by the said Certificate.
Petitioner Contented that the issuance of the Certificate of Sale of
Execution of Real Property is valid as well as the writ of possession because
the same is a public document which enjoys the presumption of regularity
and it cannot be overcome by a mere strange feeling that something is
amiss on its surface simply because the typewritten words on the front page
and at the dorsal portion thereof is diferent or that it is unlikely for the
sherif to use the dorsal portion of the first page because the second page is
merely half filled and the notation on the dorsal portion could still be made at
the second page.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in declaring the
Certificate of Sale on Execution of Real Property as null and void and
subsequently the writ of possession
HELD:

Supreme Court denied the petition. It states that, in construing that the
writ of possession being a public document therefore enjoying a presumption
of regularity is in valid.
True, public documents by themselves may be adequate to establish
the presumption of their validity. However, their probative weight must be
evaluated not in isolation but in conjunction with other evidence adduced by
the parties in the controversy, much more so in this case where the contents
of a copy thereof subsequently registered for documentation purposes is
being contested. No reason has been ofered how and why the questioned
entry was subsequently intercalated in the copy of the certificate of sale
subsequently registered with the Registry of Deeds. Absent any satisfactory
explanation as to why said entry was belatedly inserted, the
surreptitiousness of its inclusion coupled with the furtive manner of its
intercalation casts serious doubt on the authenticity of petitioners copy of
the Certificate of Sale. Thus, it has been held that while a public document
like a notarized deed of sale is vested with the presumption of regularity, this
is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents.
The certificate of sale is an accurate record of what properties were actually
sold to satisfy the debt. The strictness in the observance of accuracy and
correctness in the description of the properties renders the enumeration in
the certificate exclusive. Thus, subsequently including properties which have
not been explicitly mentioned therein for registration purposes under
suspicious circumstances smacks of fraud. The explanation that the land on
which the properties sold is necessarily included and, hence, was belatedly
typed on the dorsal portion of the copy of the certificate subsequently
registered is at best a lame excuse unworthy of belief.
The appellate court correctly observed that there was a marked diference in
the appearance of the typewritten words appearing on the first page of the
copy of the Certificate of Sale registered with the Registry of Deeds and
those appearing at the dorsal portion thereof. Underscoring the irregularity of
the intercalation is the clearly devious attempt to let such an insertion pass
unnoticed by typing the same at the back of the first page instead of on the
second page which was merely half-filled and could accommodate the entry
with room to spare.
The foregoing provision of the Civil Code enumerates land and
buildings separately. This can only mean that a building is, by itself,
considered immovable. Thus, it has been held that . . . while it is true that a
mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation of the
improvements thereon, buildings, still a building by itself may be mortgaged
apart from the land on which it has been built. Such mortgage would be still
a real estate mortgage for the building would still be considered immovable
property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land.
In this case, considering that what was sold by virtue of the writ of execution
issued by the trial court was merely the storehouse and bodega constructed
on the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-40785,
which by themselves are real properties of respondents spouses, the same
should be regarded as separate and distinct from the conveyance of the lot
on which they stand.