ZAMBOANGA BARTER TRADERS KILUSANG BAYAN, INC. represented by its President, ATTY. HASAN G. ALAM, Petitioner, v.

HON. JULIUS RHETT J. PLAGATA, Labor Arbiter, SHERIFF DANILO P. TEJADA and TEOPISTO MENDOZA, Respondents.
J. Chico-Nazario September 30, 2008 G.R. No. 148433
Doctrine Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals. “When a deed of donation expressly provides for automatic
revocation and reversion of the property donated, the rules on contract and the general rules on prescription should
apply, and not Article 764 of the Civil Code. Since Article 1306 of said Code authorizes the parties to a contract to
establish such stipulations, . . . not contrary to law, . . . public order or public policy, we are of the opinion that, at the
very least, that stipulation of the parties providing for automatic revocation of the deed of donation, without prior judicial
action for that purpose, is valid subject to the determination of the propriety of the rescission sought. Where such
propriety is sustained, the decision of the court will be merely declaratory of the revocation, but it is not in itself the
revocatory act.”
Summary ZBTKBI donated land to the Republic subject to the condition that in the event that barter trading shall be phased out,
the land shall revert to ZBTKB. As a consequence of an unfavorable decision in a labor case filed by Mendoza against
ZBTKBI, the donated land was levied and sold in a public auction with Mendoza as the highest bidder. SC: Proceedings
are valid. As these were made after barter trading was phased out, ZBTKBI already owned the lot in question.
Facts  Presidential Decree No. 93. Pres. Marcos issued P.D. No. 93 which legalized barter trading in the Sulu
Archipelago.
 Deed of Donation. ZBTKBI donated to the Republic a parcel of land (Lot No. 6) situated in the City of
Zamboanga.
 Conditions. (1) DONEE shall construct a P5 Million Barter Trade market building thereon; (2) The said Barter
Trade Market building shall accommodate at least 1,000 stalls; (3) The said Barter Trade Market building to be
constructed shall be to the strict exclusion of any other building for barter trading in Zamboanga City; (4) In the
event barter trading shall be phased out, prohibited, or suspended for more than one (1) year in
Zamboanga City, Philippines, the afore-described parcel of land shall revert back to the DONOR without
need of any further formality or documentation, and the DONOR shall have the first option to purchase
the building and improvements thereon.
 Compliance. Pursuant to condition No. 1 of the Deed of Donation, the Government constructed a Barter Trade
Market Building worth P5,000,000.00 at the said Lot No. 6.
 Labor case. Prior to said donation, private respondent Teopisto Mendoza (Mendoza) was hired by ZBTKBI as
clerk. He was terminated on the ground of abandonment of work. LA: Dismissal of Mendoza illegal. ZBTKBI
ordered to reinstate Mendoza and to pay him backwages. NLRC: Appeal dismissed. The decision became final
and executory. Pursuant to this, a Writ of Execution and, subsequently, an Alias Writ of Execution were issued.
However, both were returned by the Sheriff unsatisfied.
 Memorandum Circular No. 1. The Office of the President issued Memorandum Circular No. 1 which totally
phased out the Zamboanga City barter trade area.
 Second Alias Writ of Execution. In compliance with the Second Alias Writ of Execution, the Sheriff levied
whatever interest, share, right, claim and/or participation of ZBTKBI had over Lot No. 6, together with all the
buildings and improvements existing thereon.
 Certificate of Sale. The afore-described property was sold at public auction for P96,443.53, with Mendoza as
the sole highest bidder. The property was not redeemed. As a consequence, a Sheriffs Final Certificate of Sale
in favor of Mendoza was executed.
 Writ of Possession. Having failed to take possession of the land in question, Mendoza filed a petition praying
that the same be issued ordering that actual possession over the real property, together with all the buildings
and improvements thereon. Granted. Writ of possession was returned duly served and fully satisfied.
 CA denied the petition for certiorari and prohibition of ZBTKBI.
Ratio/Issues (I) WON CA erred in concluding that the donated property has already reverted to ZBTKBI [NO. The deed of
donation contains a stipulation that allows automatic reversion of the subject land to the donor upon phase out
of barter trading in Zamboanga City. Such stipulation, not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy, is valid and binding on the parties to the donation.]
 It is clear from condition No. 4 of the Deed of Donation that the property donated to the Republic, in the event
that barter trading was phased out, prohibited or suspended for more than one year in Zamboanga City, shall
revert to the donor without need of any further formality or documentation.
 Per Memorandum Circular No. 1 of the Office of the President, barter trade in Zamboanga City was totally
phased out. Following the condition contained in the Deed of Donation, the donated land shall revert to the
ZBTKBI without further formality or documentation. It follows that upon the phase-out of barter trade, ZBTKBI
again became the owner of the subject land. Thus, when the property was levied and sold, it was already
ZBTKBI that owned the same.
 It should be clear that reversion applied only to the land and not to the building and improvements made by the
Republic on the land worth P5,000,000.00.
 CA merely enforced or applied the conditions contained in the deed of donation. There being nothing
ambiguous in the contents of the document, there is no room for interpretation but only simple application
thereof. There is nothing there that shows that the Republic will be reimbursed. What is stated there is that
ZBTKBI has the first option to purchase the buildings and improvements thereon. In other words, the Republic
can sell the buildings and improvements that it made or built.
 In contracts providing for automatic revocation, judicial intervention is necessary not for purposes of obtaining a
judicial declaration rescinding a contract already deemed rescinded by virtue of an agreement providing for
rescission even without judicial intervention, but in order to determine whether or not the rescission was proper.
  See doctrine.

(II) WON CA erred in not passing upon the issue of the nullity of the levy, it having been made without prior
notice to the Republic [NO]
(III) WON CA erred in not declaring that all the proceedings subsequent to the invalid levy, such as the auction,
the certificate of sale and the issuance of the writ of possession, are void ab initio [NO]
 The arguments advanced byZBTKBI are all premised on the assumption that the Republic was still the owner
of the land when the levy was made. As ruled above, the land reverted to ZBTKBI without need of any further
formality or documentation when barter trading was phased out in Zamboanga City. Not being the owner of the
land when the levy was made, the Republic need not have been notified anymore. It cannot be deprived of a
piece of land of which it is no longer the owner.

(IV) WON CA erred in not declaring the execution sale of the subject lot as void ab initio considering that the
sheriff committed grave abuse of discretion in causing an over-levy on a p100 million property for a judgment
for sum of money in the amount of P96,433.53 [NO]
Section 15, Rule 39, Rules of Court.
Sec. 15. Execution of money judgments. The officer must enforce an execution of a money judgment by levying on all
the property, real and personal of every name and nature whatsoever, and which may be disposed of for value, of the
judgment debtor not exempt from execution, or on a sufficient amount of such property, if there be sufficient, and selling
the same, and paying to the judgment creditor, or his attorney, so much of the proceeds as will satisfy the judgment. Any
excess in the proceeds over the judgment and accruing costs must be delivered to the judgment debtor, unless
otherwise directed by the judgment or order of the court. When there is more property of the judgment debtor than is
sufficient to satisfy the judgment and accruing costs, within the view of the officer, he must levy only on such part of the
property as is amply sufficient to satisfy the judgment and costs. xxx
 ZBTKBI: From said section, it is clear that a sheriff must levy upon and sell only such property, personal or real,
as is amply sufficient to satisfy the judgment and costs. It faults the sheriff for levying on the subject property,
the value of which is so much more than the money judgment.
 However, the sheriff cannot be faulted for levying on the subject land. Sheriff tried to satisfy the money
judgment when he went to Atty. Alam, President of ZBTKBI. Instead of cooperating and satisfying the
judgment, Atty. Alam did not comply with the money judgment. Instead, he threatened the sheriff, saying that if
the latter insisted on enforcing the writ of execution, he should wear an iron dress. The actuation of Atty. Alam
was clear defiance of the executory judgment. ZBTKBI had no intention of satisfying the judgment.
 ZBTKBI: The auction sale of the subject property should be voided, because the winning bid was so
scandalously low and shocking to the conscience.
 It is settled that when there is a right to redeem, inadequacy of price is of no moment, for the reason that the
judgment debtor always has the chance to redeem and reacquire the property. In fact, the property may be sold
for less than its fair market value, precisely because the lesser the price, the easier for the owner to effect a
redemption. In the instant case, as stated in the Sheriffs Final Certificate of Sale, ZBTKBI had the right to
redeem, but it failed to exercise such right.

(V) WON CA erred in not passing upon the issue that the judgment a quo may no longer be executed by mere
motion under section 6, rule 39 of the rules of court (now 1997 rules of civil procedure) [NO]
Section 6, Rule 39, Rules of Court.
Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. A judgment may be executed on motion within five (5) years from
the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred
by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action.
 ZBTKBI: The decision of the NLRC dated 15 November 1983, which became final and executory on 18
January 1984, can no longer be executed by mere motion beyond five years after its finality during the first
week of December 1983, but by independent action.
 It is clear from the above rule that a judgment may be executed on motion within five years from the date of its
entry or from the date it becomes final and executory. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by
the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. If the prevailing party fails to have the decision
enforced by a mere motion after the lapse of five years from the date of its entry (or from the date it becomes
final and executory), the said judgment is reduced to a mere right of action in favor of the person whom it favors
and must be enforced, as are all ordinary actions, by the institution of a complaint in a regular form. However,
there are instances in which this Court allowed execution by motion even after the lapse of five years upon
meritorious grounds. An exception is the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment debtor
and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage.
 The purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations for enforcing judgments or actions is to prevent obligors
from sleeping on their rights. It cannot be disputed that Mendoza had not slept on his rights. The five-year
period allowed for enforcement of a judgment by motion was deemed to have been interrupted by ZBTKBI. The
prevention of the satisfaction of the judgment on the first two writs of execution cannot be blamed on Mendoza.
The satisfaction of the judgment was already beyond his control. In view of the foregoing and for reasons of
equity, we deem that the Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution filed by Mendoza on 18 December
1989 has been filed within the five-year period.
Held Petition DENIED. CA AFFIRMED.