Bobis v. The Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Norte and Zosimo Rivera
GR No. L-29838
March 18, 1983
Facts
Rufina Camino and Pastor Eco were the registered owners of a parcel of land. The said land was cultivated by spouses Fermin Bobis and Emilia Guadalupe. On July 25, 1950, Alfonso Ortega filed a complaint against the four for the recovery of possession of one-half of the cleared and planted portion of the land, or the payment of Php1,650, which is the value of the improvements he introduced thereon. The parties, on August 16, 1950, executed a compromise agreement, which states that Camino and Eco shall pay Ortega Php140 as payment for the improvements and that after such payment is made, Ortega would respect the absolute and exclusive ownership of the land.
On August 26, 1950, just ten days after the execution of the compromise agreement, Eco and Camino sold the land to Bobis and Guadalupe. Later, on January 22, 1951, the compromise agreement was approved by the court. When the obligation became due on February 28, 1951, Eco and Camino paid Ortega only Php50 instead of the agreed upon Php140. As a result, a writ of execution was issued, commanding the sheriff to levy the good and chattels of the four defendants. Consequently, the sheriff levied on the land sold to Bobis and Guadalupe. The land was later on sold to Zosimo Rivera at an execution sale.
Issue
1. Was the writ of execution valid?
2. Was the sale of the land to Bobis and Guadalupe done to defraud Ortega?
Ruling
1. No. The writ of execution was null and void with respect to Bobis and Guadalupe. Thus, the subsequent sale to Rivera was also void. It can be seen in the compromise agreement that only Eco and Camino were obliged to pay Php140 to Ortega even though Bobis and Guadalupe were made a party to the case. The court acted in excess of jurisdiction. The judgement in the civil case was based upon a compromise agreement of the parties. In Yboleon v. Sison, the Court ruled that “a judge or court, which sets aside a judgment rendered upon consent of the parties and based on a compromise entered into by them, which is converted into such judgment, cannot amend or set it aside without the consent of said parties, or without first having declared in an incidental preliminary hearing that such compromise is vitiated by any of the ground for nullity enumerated in Art 2038 of the Civil Code.”
2. No. The rule is that fraud is not presumed. Being criminal in nature, fraud should be proved by clear preponderance of evidence. In order that the contract may be rescinded by reason of fraud to creditors, the following must concur:
a. It should be shown that both contracting parties have acted maliciously and with fraud and for the purpose of prejudicing said creditors
b. The creditors must be deprived by the transaction of all means by which they may effect collection of their claims.
All these circumstances must be present.
There is no evidence that Camino and Eco connived with Bobis and Guadalupe to defraud Ortega. There is also no evidence that the sale tended to deprive Ortega of means to collect his claim from the obligors. Even if the circumstances can be considered as badges of fraud, the sale cannot be considered in fraud of creditors in absence of proof that Camino and Eco have no other properties except that parcel of land sold to Bobis and Guadalupe.
It's a Ping Thing 