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 Sheriff 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 Sheriff, 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 different or that it is unlikely for the sheriff 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 offered 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 difference 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.