In light with this, the respondent filed a complaint before the RTC Las Pinas Branch 198 for the unlawfu l acts of the petitioner and the Sheriff in enforcing the Writ of Execution. o RTC Branch 198 denied the petition. However, upon appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC and held that it was procedurally defective as there was no showing that respondent was made to choa:;e which among her properties shou ld be levied upon. Hence, this petition. o Facts: Petitioner Del Rosario gave a loan to respondent Ocampo-Ferrer to the amount of P800k which the latter secured with a parcel of land . Respondent defaulted in her payment, to which petitioner filed a case in the RTC Las Pinas Branch 275 for the collection of a sum of money. o They later arrived on a compromise whereby respondent bound herself to pay petitioner P l .2M on or before June 19, 2005. This was subsequently approved by the RTC. Respon dent sti ll failed to pay petitioner the agreed amount, so the latter moved for the execution of the decision. Sheriff Ortiz issued a demand/Notice to pay which respondent failed to act upon, thereby compelling the Sheriff to levy a separate parcel of land. It was then sold at auction to the petitioner as the sole bidder.