G.R. No. L-42282. February 28, 1983
HERMENEGILDO R. ROSALES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. PEREGRIN YBOA, PROVINCIAL DEPUTY SHERIFF OF SAMAR AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF SAMAR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
DE CASTRO, J.:
Resolution of November 13, 1975 the appeal thereto made having raised purely
legal question, which is whether or not the Court of First Instance of Samar, in
Civil Case No. 5325 entitled “Hermenegildo Rosales vs. Peregrin Yboa,
et al.,” erred in declaring the legality and validity of the redemption made by
the mortgagor Pedro Oliverio of his titled property.
It appears that by virtue of the foreclosure of real estate mortgage duly
executed by the mortgagor Pedro Oliverio in favor of the Development Bank of the
Philippines, as security for the payment of the amount of P12,000.00, and after
giving notice of the date, time and place of sale as required by law,
defendant-appellee Deputy Sheriff of Samar Peregrin Yboa, sold at public auction
on January 28, 1970 to plaintiff-appellant Rosales, the highest bidder, for the
total amount of fourteen thousand five hundred pesos (P14,500.00), the parcel of
land covered by T.C.T. No. T-646 of the Register of Deeds for the Province of
Samar. The corresponding Sheriff’s certificate of sale was issued in favor of
plaintiff-appellant, which certificate was registered in the Office of the
Register of Deeds for the Province of Samar on February 3, 1970.
On January 23, 1971, after the mortgagor Pedro Oliverio had served notice in
writing of the redemption and had paid on said date to defendant-appellee Deputy
Sheriff the principal amount of P14,500.00 plus P1,691.00 representing the one
(1%) per centum interest per month, the latter executed a Deed of Certificate of
Redemption restoring, conveying and assigning unto the said mortgagor, his heirs
and assigns all the estate, right, title and interest on said foreclosed
property.
On March 10, 1971, plaintiff-appellant filed the instant complaint for
cancellation of certificate of redemption alleging that no valid redemption was
effected because while the mortgagor had paid within the period of redemption
the purchase price in the sum of P14,500.00 plus P1,691.00 representing 1%
interest per month, he, however, failed to tender payment of 1) the full
interest on the purchase price, which should be P1,715.84, instead of P1,691.00
actually paid by the mortgagor, thereby leaving a deficiency in the sum of
P24.84; 2) the sum of P3.00 representing the registration fee of the certificate
of sale, plus interest thereon of P0.04; 3) the delinquent real estate taxes of
the subject property for the years 1960 to 1970 amounting to P745.47; and 4) the
Sheriff’s commission in the sum of P99.82.
On March 22, 1971, defendants-appellees filed an answer alleging that while
it is true that mortgagor Pedro Oliverio has tendered to defendant-appellee
Deputy Sheriff the amount of P14,500.00 plus P1,691.00 for redemption purpose,
the sum tendered being the amount of the auction purchase price plus 1% interest
per month thereon up to the time of redemption and the tender being timely made
and in good faith, the same is a valid one according to Section 30, Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court; that granting in arguendo, that the property subject of
redemption is delinquent in the payment of real estate taxes for the years 1960
to 1970 in the total amount of P745.47, it will not in anyway affect the
regularity and validity of the redemption for no written notice that any such
assessments or taxes are paid by the plaintiff-appellant as purchaser, was given
to defendant-appellee Deputy Sheriff who made the sale thereof and such not
having filed, the property may be redeemed even without paying such assessments
or taxes.
On August 16, 1971, the trial court conducted a pre-trial of the case. After
such pre-trial and upon motion of plaintiff-appellant, the trial court rendered
a summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of Court, since the answer
of defendants-appellees raises no genuine issue of material facts, as well as
their admission of the genuineness and due execution of the Certificate of Sale
executed by defendant-appellee Deputy Sheriff in favor of plaintiff-appellant;
the payment of entry fee and annotation on TCT No. T-640 of the Certificate of
Sale in the sum of P3.00; the Certificate of Redemption executed by
defendant-appellee Deputy Sheriff in favor of mortgagor Pedro Oliverio; the
Certificate of Delinquency of real estate taxes of the subject property in the
amount of P745.47; and the non-payment of sheriff’s commission in the sum of
P99.82. In the summary judgment the trial court dismissed the
plaintiff-appellant’s complaint and declared that the Certificate of Redemption
of the property sold at public auction is valid and legal “without prejudice to
the right of the plaintiff-appellant to recover from the redemptioner the sum of
P0.67 representing the deficiencies in the 1% monthly interest[1] and the sum of P3.00 representing the
entry and annotation fees of the Register of Deed of Samar for the registration
of the Certificate of Sale together with the sum of P0.04 representing interest
on the last stated amount from February 3, 1970 to January 23, 1971.”
On December 13, 1971, plaintiff-appellant, after receipt of the Summary
Judgment, filed his Record on Appeal, Notice of Appeal and Appeal Bond. On May
12, 1972, the trial court approved the Record on Appeal and ordered the
transmittal of the records of the case to the Court of Appeals. As
aforementioned, the Court of Appeals certified the case to this Court on the
ground that it involves the purely legal question of whether or not a valid and
legal redemption was made by the mortgagor Pedro Oliverio of his titled
property.
There is no question that Pedro Oliverio has the right to redeem the subject
property, in view of the provisions of section 6 of Act 3135, as amended by Act
No. 4148.[2] The procedure for effecting
such redemption is contained in section 30, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the
pertinent portion of which provides:
“Sec. 30. Time and manner of, and amounts payable on successive
redemptions. Notice to be given and filed.— The judgment debtor, or
redemptioner, may redeem the property from the purchaser, at anytime within
twelve (12) months after the sale, on paying the purchaser the amount of his
purchase, with one per centum per month interest thereon in addition, up to the
time of redemption, together with the amount of any assessments or taxes which
the purchaser may have paid thereon after purchase, and interest on such last
named amount at the same rate; . . .. . . . . . . . .
“Written notice of any redemption must be given to the Officer who made the
sale and a duplicate filed with the register of deeds of the province; . .
.”
Pursuant to the above-cited provision, the requisites for a valid redemption
are: 1) the redemption must be made within twelve (12) months from the time of
the registration of the sale in the Office of the Register of Deeds (Gorospe
vs. Santos, 69 SCRA 191; Agbulos vs. Alberto, 5 SCRA 790;
Santos vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, et al., 101 Phil. 980);
2) payment of the purchase price of the property involved, plus 1% interest per
month thereon, together with the amounts of assessments or taxes thereon, if
any, paid by the purchaser after the sale with the same rate of interests
(Rosario vs. Tayug Rural Bank, 22 SCRA 1220 cited in Tolentino
vs. Court of Appeals, 106 SCRA 513); and 3) written notice of the
redemption must be served on the officer who made the sale and a duplicate filed
with the Register of Deeds of the province.
There is no dispute, that in the case at bar, the mortgagor Pedro Oliverio
tendered payment of the purchase price on January 23, 1971, well within the
redemption period of twelve (12) months after the registration of the sale on
February 3, 1970 and that defendants-appellees Deputy Sheriff of Samar and the
Register of Deeds of Samar were duly notified in writing of the mortgagor’s
desire to redeem the subject property. Equally beyond question is the fact that
mortgagor Pedro Oliverio tendered the sum of P14,500.00 corresponding to the
purchase price of the property, and the amount of P1,691.00 representing the 1%
monthly interest thereon, although the trial court found a deficiency of P0.67
due and owing to the plaintiff-appellant. The mortgagor, therefor, has
substantially complied with the requirements of the law to effect redemption,
for which reason a Certificate of Redemption was issued in his favor by
defendant-appellee Deputy Sheriff.
But plaintiff-appellant would insist that although mortgagor Pedro Oliverio
had tendered payment of the purchase price of P14,500.00 and the interest of
P1,691.00, nevertheless, no valid redemption was effected by the latter, since
there are still four deficiencies which the mortgagor failed to pay. Firstly,
plaintiff-appellant would contend that there is still a deficiency interest of
P24.84 on the purchase price since the interest thereon should be computed from
the date of the auction sale, that is, January 28, 1970, and not from the date
of the registration thereof on February 3, 1970. The contention is without
merit. Plaintiff-appellant has not cited any authority to support his theory
that the interest on the purchase price should be computed from the date of the
sale and not from the registration thereof. We rule that since the period of
redemption begins only from the date of the registration of the certificate of
sale in the Office of the Register of Deeds, it being only then that the
certificate takes effect as a conveyance,[3] the computation of the interest on the
purchase price should also be made to commence from that date.
Secondly, although the amount of P3.00 representing the registration fee
incurred by plaintiff-appellant may be considered as “any assessments or taxes
which the purchaser may have paid thereon after purchase,” still the non-payment
of this amount by the mortgagor Pedro Oliverio will not render invalid his
redemption, since, as discussed above, he has substantially complied with the
legal requirements for a valid redemption.
Thirdly, as to the non-payment of real estate taxes of the subject property
for the years 1960 to 1970 amounting to P745.47, the same should not affect the
regularity and validity of the redemption made by the mortgagor Pedro Oliverio.
The latter is not legally bound to pay such amount to plaintiff-appellant as
purchaser, for Section 30, Rule 39 clearly provides that “the judgment debtor,
or redemptioner, may redeem the property . . . on paying the purchaser . . . the
amount of any assessments or taxes which the purchaser may have paid thereon
after purchase; and interest on such last-named amount at the same rate.”
Nowhere in the Records is it shown that plaintiff-appellant had paid such
amount. On the contrary, defendants-appellees in their Answer[4] to plaintiff-appellant’s complaint, have
averred that no written notice that any assessments or taxes are paid by the
latter as purchaser, was given to defendant-appellee Deputy Sheriff of Samar,
who made the sale thereof. In fact, the Solicitor-General, in his Brief filed in
behalf of the defendants-appellees, has made the following observation:[5]
“We are indeed surprised how appellant was able to secure the registration of
his certificate of sale without first paying the delinquent taxes as required by
Section 1, Republic Act No. 456.“An extra judicial foreclosure sale being in the nature of a voluntary
transaction, appellant should have been required by the Register of Deeds of
Samar to pay the delinquent land taxes on the subject property before
registering his certificate of sale. Payment of delinquent land taxes being a
condition precedent to the registration of appellant’s Certificate of Sale, but
which, somehow, he was able to evade, he cannot now avail of the issue of such
delinquent land taxes to defeat the mortgagor’s right of
redemption.”
Finally, the non-payment of the Sheriff’s commission in the sum of P99.82
will not, likewise, affect the validity of redemption since such amount is not
included in the payments required of a redemptioner as set forth in said Section
30 of Rule 39.
In fine, We hold that the failure of the mortgagor Pedro Oliverio to tender
the amount of P745.47 representing the delinquent real estate taxes of the
subject property, the registration fee of P3.00 and the interest thereon of
P0.04, the Sheriff’s Commission in the sum of P99.82, and the deficiency
interest on the purchase price of the subject property, will not render the
redemption in question null and void, it having been established that he has
substantially complied with the requirements of the law to effect a valid
redemption, with his tender of payment of the purchase price and the interest
thereon within twelve (12) months from the date of the registration of the sale.
This ruling is in obedience of the policy of the law to aid rather than to
defeat the right of redemption.[6]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is
hereby affirmed, without costs.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion Jr.,
Guerrero, Abad Santos and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Aquino,
J., is on leave.
[1] As per computation, the lower court
found a deficiency of P0.67 due and owing to plaintiff-appellant.
[2] “Section 6. In all cases in which
an extra-judicial sale is made under the special power herein before referred
to, the debtor, his successors-in-interest or any judicial creditor or judgment
creditor of said debtor, or any person having a lien on the property subsequent
to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold, may redeem
the same at any time within the term of one year from and after the date of the
sale, and such redemption shall be governed by the provisions of sections four
hundred and sixty-four to four hundred and sixty-six inclusive, of the Code of
Civil Procedure, in so far as these are not inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act.”
[3] Gorospe vs. Santos, 69
SCRA 191, citing Agbulos vs. Alberto, 5 SCRA 790; Garcia vs.
Ocampo, 105 Phil. 1102.
[4] p. 27, Record on Appeal.
[5] pp. 8-9, Brief for Appellees, p.
28, Rollo.
[6] Tolentino vs. Court of
Appeals, 106 SCRA 513, 525, citing Javellana vs. Mirasol and Nuñez, 40
Phil. 761.