ABIGUEL REYES-GREGORIO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. ARSENIO REYES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On May 8, 1958, the spouses Dominador
Gregorio (now deceased) and Abiguel Reyes – the
latter is now one of the
plaintiff-appellees – borrowed from the Manila
Building and Loan Association the sum of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000), securing
payment thereof with a mortgage upon a parcel of land with an area of 332 sq.m. situated at Barrio Concepcion, Malabon, Rizal and covered by T.C.T. No. 32734.  As the mortgagors failed to pay the
amortizations agreed upon, the mortgage was foreclosed extra judicially and
sold at public auction by the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal
on January 5, 1962 to
defendant-appellant, the highest bidder. 
As a re­sult the corresponding certificate of sale was issued in his
name.  The consideration mentioned
therein was the sum of Six Thousand Fifty Pesos (P6,050), and it likewise
provided that the properties sold could be redeemed within one year or not
later than January 5, 1963.

On January 3, 1963,
appellee Abiguel
Reyes-Gregorio went to the office of the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal and tendered
payment of and the latter received the sum of Six Thousand Seven Hundred
Seventy-Six Pesos (P6,776) for the redemption of the
property and issued the correspond­ing official receipt therefore on the same
date.  On April 19, 1963, she demanded from defendant-appellant the
execution of the corresponding deed of reconveyance,
but the latter refused claiming that she could no longer exercise the right of
redemption because the period there­fore had already expired.  For this reason the present suit was
commenced.

After due trial the lower
court rendered judgment as follows:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, it is the finding of this Court that the
redemption made by the plaintiff was in accord­ance with law.  Therefore, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff as against the
defendant and the sheriff is hereby ordered to collect from the plaintiff and
to deliver to the defendant the legal expenses incurred by the said defendant
like the sheriff’s fees, assessments and documentary stamps which were not
included in the redemption price previously fixed by the sheriff, and that once
this is complied with, to inform
the Court so that the Register of Deeds may be ordered
to cancel the title to the property previously issued to defendant and to issue
a new one in the name of the
plaintiff.”

From the above decision defendant-appellant inter­posed the
present appeal.

The facts hereinbefore set forth are not disputed, the same being
covered by the stipulation of the facts submitted by the parties.  Likewise, appellees‘
right to redeem the properties sold at the extra-judicial foreclo­sure sale is
clear, under the provision Section 6 of Act 3135 as amended by Act 4118.  Therefore, the only issue to be resolved now is whether or not appellees
exercised their right of redemption in the manner provided by law.

We are of the opinion and so hold that Section 27 of Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court, in relation to the pro­visions of Act 3135 as amended by
Act 4118, is decisive of the above issue. 
It provides that the payment of the redemption money should be made
“to the purchaser or redemptioner, or for him to
the officer who made the sale.” And it has been held in this connection
that it is the duty of the officer who made the sale to accept the tender of
payment and execute the corresponding certi­ficate of redemption provided such
tender is made within the period for the purpose (Enaje
vs. Vda. A. Escaño
38 Phil. 657).  It is crystal
clear, therefore, that the redemption made in this case was timely and in
accordance with law.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is
hereby rendered affirming the decision appealed from, with double costs imposed
on appellant. 

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz
Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and
Barredo, JJ., concur.