JOSE AGBULOS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. JOSE C. ALBERTO DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

By virtue of a writ of execution issued by the Court of First
Instance of Manila on March 16, 1959 in Civil Case No. 18644 entitled
Jose Agbulos, plaintiff, vs. Jose C Alberto, defendant, the
rights, interests and participation of the letter in a parcel of land
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No, 24643 of the land records
of Manila were levied upon. After due proceedings the corresponding
execution sale thereof was had on June 15, 1959, with herein appellant
Agbulos (judgment creditor in the case) as the highest bidder. The
officer who made the sale issued the certificate of sale on July 8,
1959 and the same provided that “The redemption of the above described
property from the purchaser may be made at any time within twelve (12)
months after the sale.” The same was registered in the Officer of the
Register of Deeds of Manila on July 18, of the same year. The entry or
annotation made on the back of the title of the property reads as
follows:

“Entry No. 9221/T24653—Certificate of sale—In favor
of JOSE AGBULOS—Affecting the rights interest and participation of Jose
C. Alberto in the property herein described for the sum of P6,000.00 by
the sale having been made at public auction by the Sheriff of Manila,
pursuant to the Notice of Levy inscribed hereon under Entry No.
5324/E03701 subject to redemption within one (1) year from registration
hereof.

“Date of instrument—July 8, 1959

“Date of inscription—July 18, 1959 at 3:40 pm,”

On June 23, 1960, appellee herein (judgment debtor in the case)
paid the Sheriff of Manila the total sum of P6,670.00 for the
redemption of the property and said officer executed in his favor on
the same date the corresponding certificate of redemption.

It appears that on the same date (June 23, 1960) appellant filed
with the Sheriff of Manila a verified request for the execution and
delivery to him of the final deed of sale upon the ground that the
judgment debtor had not redeemed the property within the period of one
year after the sale. On June 29 of the same year the Sheriff replied
that he could not accede to the request, giving the following as his
reasons for the denial: (a) that the certificate of sale in
favor of appellant was registered only on July 18, 1959, for which
reason the period of redemption commenced to run only from such date,
and (b) that the judgment debtor had deposited on June 23,
1960, that is, before the expiration of the one-year period of
redemption, the total sum of P6,670.00 in full redemption of his
property.

In view of the action taken by the Sheriff, on July, 5, 1960
appellant filed a motion in Civil Case No. 18644 praying for an order
annulling the certificate of redemption issued by the Sheriff of Manila
in favor of appellee and directing said officer to issue the
corresponding certificate of absolute sale in his favor. Appellee
opposed the motion, and on July 22,. 1960 the lower court denied the
same. Hence this appeal taken by Agbulos who claims that the lower
court erred in ruling that the one-year period of redemption commenced
to run only from the date of the registration of the certificate of
sale and, consequently, erred likewise in denying his motion of July 5,
1960.

Section 26, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that “the
judgment debtor, or redemptioner, may redeem the property from the
purchaser, at any time within twelve months after the sale”
(Italics supplied) without specifying whether the period should start
from (1) the date when the execution sale was made, or (2) from the
date when the certificate of sale was executed by the sheriff who made
the sale, or (3) from the date when said certificate of sale was
registered in the office of the corresponding register of deeds.

The property involved in the present case is registered land. It is
the law in this jurisdiction that when property brought under the
operation of the Land Registration Act is sold, the operative act is
the registration of the deed of conveyance. The deed of sale does not
“take effect as a conveyance, or bind the land” until it is registered
(Section 50, Act No. 496; Tuason vs. Raymundo, 24 Phil. 635; Sikatuna vs. Guevara, 43 Phil., 371; Worcester vs.
Ocampo, 34 Phil., 646). Undoubtedly, to be in consonance with this well
settled rule, Section 24, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, provides that
a duplicate of the certificate of sale given by the sheriff who made
the auction sale to the purchaser must be filed (registered) in the
office of the register of deeds of the province where the property is
situated.

In Garcia vs. Ocampo, 100 Phil., 1102; 57 Off. Gaz., [40]
7137; we held that the twelve months period of redemption provided for
in Sec. 26, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court “begins to run not from the
date of the sale, but from the time of registration of the sale in the
office of the register of deeds.” The entry or annotation made on the
back of the certificate of title of the property in question on July
18, 1959 (supra) was in accordance with the ruling when it
provided that the execution sale was subject to redemption within one
(1) year from registration hereof.”

A case similar to the present is that of Gonzalez, et al. vs.
Philippine National Bank et al., 48 Phil., 824, where we held that the
provision of Section 32, Act 2938 (Charter of the Philippine National
Bank) providing for a right of redemption in favor of the bank’s
mortgagor “within one year after the sale of the real estate
as a result of the foreclosure” should be construed to mean one year
after the confirmation of the foreclosure sale, because the sale
becomes valid only after confirmation. Along the same line we may say
in this case, that the period of one year after the sale must likewise
start only from the date of registration of the certificate of sale,
because it is only then that the certificate takes “effect as a
conveyance” in accordance with Act 496.

Aside from what has been said heretofore, appellant is now estopped
from claiming that the one-year period of redemption started earlier
than the date when the certificate of sale was registered, for the
reason that he failed timely to question the entry or annotation made
on the back of the certificate of title of the property he had
purchased, to the effect that the sale thereof in his favor was subject
to redemption within one year from the registration of said certificate
of sale.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Regala Makalintal, JJ., concur.