EXECUTION SALE: THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR ALLEGING LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE POSTING AND PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE AUCTION SALE (SECTION 15, RULES 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT) IS BEHOOVED TO PROVE SUCH ALLEGATION (Venzon v. Spouses Juan, 471 Phil. 152 (2004)

x x x [T]he duty imposed by Section [18] (c) is reposed upon the sheriff, who is charged with the enforcement of the writ. Respondent spouses had a right to presume that he had regularly performed his duty. It was not incumbent upon them to present him as a witness for, in the absence of the sheriff, the burden to prove lack of posting and publication remained with petitioner. (Id. at 161-162.)     (Emphasis supplied)

Respondents made no attempt to meet this burden of evidence, simply maintaining lack of notice of the entire proceedings (execution and issuance of a new title over the subject property) before the trial court. Hence, the Supreme Court cannot subscribe to respondents’ belated posturing.

The disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed was not overcome by respondents. (Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court.)  The documents on record lead us to the inevitable conclusion that respondents had constructive, if not actual, notice of the execution proceedings from the issuance of the Writ of Execution, the levy on the subject property, its subjection to execution sale, up to and until the proceedings in the RTC relating to the issuance of a new certificate of title over the subject property.  Certainly, respondents are precluded from feigning ignorance of MFR (substituted by Reyes) staking a claim thereon.

There was substantial compliance with Section 15, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court: the documents in support thereof, i.e., the Certificate of Posting issued by Sheriff Legaspi and the Affidavit of Publication executed by the publisher of The Times Newsweekly, appear to be in order. In this case, the purpose of giving notice through posting and publication under Section 15(c) of the same rule—to let the public know of the sale to the end that the best price or a better bid may be made possible to minimize prejudice to the judgment debtor—was realized (RUBEN C. REYES VS. TANG SOAT ING & ANDO G. SY, G.R. NO. 185620, DECEMBER 14, 2011, PEREZ, J.).