The Supreme Court ruled that a writ of possession cannot include a parcel of land if the Certificate of Sale only lists the buildings constructed on that land. This decision clarifies that a building and the land it stands on are considered separate immovable properties. Consequently, a foreclosure sale that includes only the building does not automatically transfer ownership of the land as well, protecting landowners from losing property not explicitly listed in the sale.

Execution Sales: When Does Selling the Building Include the Land?

This case revolves around a loan obtained by Spouses Ricardo and Rosalina Galit from Marcelo Soriano, secured by a real estate mortgage. When the spouses failed to repay the loan, Soriano filed a case, which resulted in a judgment in his favor. Consequently, a writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy and subsequent sale of several properties belonging to the Galit spouses. These properties included a parcel of land and structures such as a storehouse and a bodega built on a separate lot. At the public auction, Soriano was the highest bidder, and a Certificate of Sale was issued.

A key point of contention arose when the Certificate of Sale registered with the Registry of Deeds included an entry, not present in the original certificate, describing the parcel of land (covered by TCT No. T-40785) on which the storehouse and bodega were constructed. When Soriano moved for a writ of possession, it included this land. The Galit spouses contested the inclusion of the land, arguing that it was not part of the properties sold at auction. This dispute ultimately reached the Court of Appeals, which sided with the Galit spouses, prompting Soriano to appeal to the Supreme Court. The central legal question was whether the writ of possession could validly include the land, given that only the buildings were explicitly listed in the original Certificate of Sale.

Soriano argued that the special civil action of certiorari was not the appropriate remedy for the respondents, as they could have filed a motion for reconsideration, a motion to quash, or even an appeal. He further contended that the Certificate of Sale is a public document and enjoys a presumption of regularity. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with Soriano’s procedural and substantive arguments. While acknowledging that adherence to procedural rules is generally required, the Court emphasized that rules of procedure should be liberally construed to promote a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. The Court also noted the well-established principle that where the rigid application of the rules would frustrate substantial justice, courts are justified in exempting a particular case from their operation.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the writ of possession was valid, considering that it included property not expressly mentioned in the Certificate of Sale. The Court emphasized that there were two copies of the Certificate of Sale. It scrutinized the copy registered with the Registry of Deeds, which contained an entry not found in the copy on file with the deputy sheriff. The court noted that the questioned entry, describing the parcel of land covered by OCT No. T-40785, had been belatedly inserted. This surreptitious inclusion raised serious doubts about the authenticity of Soriano’s copy of the Certificate of Sale, especially since no satisfactory explanation was offered for the delayed insertion.

“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…”

The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of accuracy and correctness in describing properties in a certificate of sale, particularly in judicial foreclosures where strict adherence to statutory requirements is necessary. An inaccurate description can invalidate the sale. The Court rejected the argument that the land on which the buildings stood was necessarily included in the sale. It referred to Article 415 of the Civil Code, which enumerates land and buildings separately, indicating that a building can be considered immovable in itself.

ART. 415. The following are immovable property:
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil.

The Supreme Court further explained that, a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it is built, and such a mortgage remains a real estate mortgage because the building is still considered immovable property. In this case, since only the storehouse and bodega were sold, they were treated as separate and distinct from the land on which they stood. Consequently, the Supreme Court denied Soriano’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which declared the writ of possession null and void. The ruling underscored the principle that selling a building does not automatically include the land unless explicitly stated in the Certificate of Sale, thus protecting the rights of landowners.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a writ of possession could include a parcel of land when only the buildings constructed on that land were listed in the Certificate of Sale. The court had to determine if the sale of the building automatically included the sale of land.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court ruled that the writ of possession could not include the land because the Certificate of Sale only mentioned the buildings. It affirmed that buildings and land are separate immovable properties.
Why was the inclusion of the land in the registered Certificate of Sale questioned?	The land’s description was added to the Certificate of Sale registered with the Registry of Deeds but was not present in the original Certificate of Sale. The court found the delayed insertion suspicious, as there was no satisfactory explanation of this alteration.
What is the significance of Article 415 of the Civil Code in this case?	Article 415 of the Civil Code was cited to emphasize that land and buildings are considered separate immovable properties. This distinction supports the ruling that selling a building does not automatically include the land.
Can a building be mortgaged separately from the land?	Yes, a building can be mortgaged separately from the land it stands on, and such a mortgage is still considered a real estate mortgage. The building remains immovable property even when dealt with independently.
What should be included in the Certificate of Sale to ensure all properties are transferred?	To ensure that all properties are transferred in a sale, the Certificate of Sale must explicitly list and accurately describe all the properties involved, including both land and any buildings or structures.
What was the original procedural error raised by the petitioner?	The petitioner claimed that the respondents should have filed a motion for reconsideration or motion to quash before resorting to a special civil action of certiorari. The Court, however, favored substantial justice over strict procedural compliance.
What is a writ of possession?	A writ of possession is a court order that commands a sheriff to put someone in possession of a property. It is typically issued after a judgment in favor of a party seeking to take possession of real estate.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle of clear and explicit property description in foreclosure sales, ensuring fairness and protecting landowners from unwarranted loss of property. This case clarifies the distinction between land and buildings as separate immovable properties under Philippine law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Soriano vs. Galit, G.R. No. 156295, September 23, 2003