Artates vs.

Urbi 37 SCRA 395 , January 30, 1971

FACTS:

The spouses Lino Artates and Manuela Pojas sought annulment of the execution of a
homestead issued to them by the proper land authorities, and duly registered in their names. The
public sale was made to satisfy a judgment against Lino Artates, and awarded to Daniel Urbi for
physical injuries inflicted by Artates upon Urbi. In the execution sale, the property was sold to
the judgment creditor, the only bidder. In their complaint, the plaintiffs spouses alleged that the
sale of the homestead to satisfy an indebtedness of Lino Artates violated the provision of the
Public Land law exempting said property from execution for any debt contracted within five
years from the date of the issuance of the patent; that defendant Urbi, with the intention of
defrauding the plaintiffs, executed a deed for the sale of the same parcel of land to defendant
Crisanto Soliven, a minor; that as a result of the aforementioned transactions, defendants Urbi
and Soliven entered into the possession of the land and deprived plaintiffs of the owners’ share in
the rice crops harvested during the agricultural year 1961-1962. Plaintiffs, therefore, prayed that
the public sale of the land to defendant Urbi, as well as the deed of sale executed by the latter in
favor of defendant Soliven, be declared null and void; that defendants be ordered to deliver to
plaintiffs possession of the land; and to pay to plaintiffs compensatory damages until possession
is finally restored to them.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to the return and possession of the lot
in question.

RULING:

YES, the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to the return and possession of the lot in
question.

The execution sale being null and void, the possession of the land should be returned to
the owners, the herein appellants. There would even be no need to order appellee Urbi to execute
a deed of reconveyance thereof to the owners. It appears that what was issued here to the
judgment creditor/purchaser was only the sheriffs provisional certificate, under which he derived
no definite title or right until the period for redemption has expired, without a redemption having
been made, or issuance of a final deed or certificate of sale. In other words, the purchaser herein
has not acquired an absolute ownership or title in fee over the land that would necessitate a deed
of reconveyance to revert ownership back to appellant spouses.