1. CERTIORARI; NOTATION OF JUDICIAL SALE UPON CERTIFICATE OF TITLE; PURCHASER IN BAD FAITH. — It should be observed that the levy of execution and the certificate of sale executed by the sheriff in 1934 in favor of E. B. were noted on the back of Certificate of Title No. 15495. When, therefore, on April 24, 1939, V. D. filed in the guardianship proceedings of R and C. A. civil case No. 3242 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna a motion seeking authority to sell the same property covered by the same certificate of title, the guardian would not plead ignorance of the interest of B in the property, and when M acquired the sale, he was also charged with that knowledge.

2. ID.; NECESSITY OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. — Furthermore, it does not appear that the question of the alleged lack of jurisdiction was brought to the attention of the respondent Judge by means of a motion for reconsideration. (Herrera v. Barretto and Joaquin, 25 Phil., 245; Uy Chu v. Imperial and Uy Du, 44 Phil., 27; Amante v. Sison and Manzanero, 60 Phil. 949; Vivencio v. Sison, 34 Off. Gaz., 1142; Bongon Vda. de Manzanero v. Court of First Instance of Batangas Et. Al. 34 Off. Gaz., 1579.)

This is an original action for certiorari submitted for decision upon the petition and the answer from which it appears that by virtue of a writ of execution issued in civil case No. 6050 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, entitled Gregorio Atienza v. Enrique Bautista, the provincial sheriff of Laguna, after levying upon a parcel of land covered by Certificate of Title No. 15495, sold the same at public auction on July 19, 1934 to the herein respondent, Enrique Bautista, who was the highest bidder. Both the levy of execution and the certificate of sale executes by the sheriff in favor of the respondent, Enrique Bautista, were noted on the back of Certificate of Title No. 15495. On October 2, 1934, Ruben Atienza and Conrado Atienza, represented by their mother, Valentina Dionglay, instituted civil cases Nos. 6562 and 6708 in the Court of First Instance of Laguna against the respondent, Enrique Bautista, and the provincial sheriff of Laguna, seeking the annulment of the aforesaid levy of execution and certificate of sale, on the ground that the land thus sold belonged to the said Ruben and Conrado Atienza and was, therefore, not liable for the debts of Gregorio Atienza. On September 21, 1936, the Court of First Instance of Laguna rendered judgment in said civil cases Nos. 6562 and 6708 declaring the levy of execution and the sheriff’s sale above referred to illegal, from which judgment the respondent, Enrique Bautista, appealed to the Court of Appeals which, on November 26, 1938, rendered the following decision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In conclusion, the plaintiffs took the donations subject to the payment of the donor’s obligation to the defendant Enrique Bautista. The rights acquired by the plaintiffs under the donations consist only of the equities of redemption. These rights the plaintiffs may now exercise, and, since the one year period for redemption stated in the sheriff’s deeds of sale has already expired, we hereby grant them an extension of six months within which to redeem the properties in litigation, computed from the date of this decision becomes final.

"The judgment appealed from is reversed and one of the tenor of this decision will be entered, with costs against the appellees."cralaw virtua1aw library

On April 24, 1939, Valentina Dionglay filed in the guardianship proceedings of Ruben and Conrado Atienza, civil case No. 3242 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, a motion asking permission to sell the parcel of land covered by Certificate of Title No. 15495, alleging that said land was the only property of the said Ruben and Conrado Atienza, that the latter had an indebtedness to the respondent, Enrique Bautista, by virtue of the decision of the Court of Appeals in civil cases Nos. 6562 and 6708, and that said sale ought to be carried out on or before May 26, 1939. On May 2, 1939, the respondent Judge granted the authority prayed for. On May 16, 1939, Valentina Dionglay, in representation of Ruben and Conrado Atienza, executed a deed of sale in favor of the herein petitioner, Jeremias Mendoza, conveying the land described in Certificate of Title No. 15495 for and in consideration of the sum of P2,000. Upon motion of Valentina Dionglay, filed on May 17, 1939, the respondent judge, on May 20, 1939, approved the sale in favor of the petitioner, Jeremias Mendoza. On May 23, 1939, Valentina Dionglay causes the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, dated September 21, 1936, to be noted on the back of Certificate of Title No. 15495, notwithstanding the fact that, as hereinbefore already noted, said judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals on November 26, 1938. Upon registration of the deed of sale in the office of the register of deeds of Laguna on May 24, 1939, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 18485 was issued by the register of deeds in the name of Jeremias Mendoza. On June 14, 1939, the respondent, Enrique Bautista, filed a motion in civil cases Nos. 6562 and 6708, praying for the issuance of a writ of possession over the land in question on the ground that the period of six months granted by the Court of Appeals in its decision of November 26, 1938, for its redemption had already expired. On the same date, June 14, 1939, Valentina Dionglay filed an answer alleging that the property could no longer be delivered to the respondent, Enrique Bautista, because it had been sold to the petitioner, Jeremias Mendoza, on May 16, 1939, for the sum of P2,000, and that neither had Ruben and Conrado Atienza any money to pay to the respondent, Enrique Bautista, because the sum of P1,900 which they would pay to said respondent was stolen on May 26, 1939. On June 29, 1939, the respondent Judge granted the motion for the writ of possession and ordered the sheriff to deliver the land in question to the respondent, Enrique Bautista. On the same date, June 29, 1939, the respondent Judge issued an order requiring Valentina Dionglay to appear before him and show cause why she should not be punished for contempt for having stated in her petition of April 24, 1939, that the minors Ruben and Conrado Atienza had a debt to the respondent, Enrique Bautista, by virtue of the decision of the Court of Appeals when in fact they had none but only the right to redeem the land from the respondent, Enrique Bautista. On August 24, 1939, the respondent Judge issued two orders, one (in civil cases No. 3242) setting aside and revoking the order approving the sale in favor of the petitioner, Jeremias Mendoza, and the other (in civil cases Nos. 6562 and 6708) directing the sheriff to deliver the possession of the land in question to the respondent, Enrique Bautista. On September 28, 1939, the present petition was filed, praying that the orders of the respondent Judge, dated June 29, 1939 and August 24. 1939, be set aside for having been issued in excess of his jurisdiction, and that, pending these proceedings, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued restraining the respondents, Judge Alejo Labrador, Dominador Chipeco, provincial sheriff of Laguna, and Enrique Bautista, from carving into effect the aforesaid orders. On September 30, 1939, after the filing of a bond of P200 by the herein petitioner, Jeremias Mendoza, this court issued said preliminary injunction.

It should be observed that the levy of execution and the certificate of sale executed by the sheriff in 1934 in favor of Enrique Bautista were noted on the back of Certificate of Title No. 15495. When, therefore, on April 24, 1939, Valentina Dionglay filed in the guardianship proceedings of Ruben and Conrado Atienza, civil case No. 3242 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, a motion seeking authority to sell the same property covered by the same certificate of title, the guardian could not plead ignorance of the interest of Bautista in the property, and when Mendoza acquired the sale, he was also charged with that knowledge. The finding of the court below that the authority given to the guardian to make the sale in favor of Mendoza was obtained through misrepresentation of the said guardian, cannot be disturbed. The fact that the alleged purchase price obtained from Mendoza was never delivered to Bautista contrary to the representation of the guardian in her motion, together with the other fact that Dionglay and the minors appear to have continued to occupy the land sold to Mendoza, are suspicious circumstances. Furthermore, it does not appear that the question of the alleged lack of jurisdiction was brought to the attention of the respondent Judge by means of a motion for reconsideration. (Herrera v. Barretto and Joaquin, 25 Phil., 245; Uy Chu v. Imperial and Uy Du, 44 Phil., 27; Amante v. Sison and Manzanero, 60 Phil., 949; Vicencio v. Sison, 34 Off. Gaz., 1442; Bongon Vda. de Manzanero v. Court of First Instance of Batangas Et. Al., 34 Off. Gaz., 1579.) As Mendoza is not an innocent purchaser, and considering the fact that the decision of the Court of Appeals in favor of Bautista is final, and attempt to defeat it should not be permitted, and considering the equities of the case, the petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed, and the preliminary injunction issued by this court consequently lifted, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion and Moran, JJ., concur.