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

Reyes-Gregorio versus Reyes

The Case

This is a civil action for the enforcement of a right of redemption arising from an extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage. The plaintiffs, led by Abiguel Reyes-Gregorio, sued Arsenio Reyes to compel him to execute a deed of reconveyance over a parcel of land he had purchased at a public auction sale. The case matters because it fixes, with precision, the manner by which a redemptioner must pay the redemption price, and it settles that a tender made to the sheriff who conducted the sale, within the redemption period, is a valid and timely exercise of the right of redemption.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs commenced the present suit in the lower court after the defendant refused their demand for a deed of reconveyance. After due trial, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the redemption made by the plaintiff was in accordance with law. The court ordered the sheriff to collect from the plaintiff and deliver to the defendant the legal expenses incurred by the defendant, such as sheriff's fees, assessments, and documentary stamps not included in the redemption price previously fixed by the sheriff. Once that was complied with, the Register of Deeds was to be ordered to cancel the title issued to the defendant and to issue a new one in the name of the plaintiff. From that decision, the defendant interposed the present appeal to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On May 8, 1958, the spouses Dominador Gregorio and Abiguel Reyes borrowed from the Manila Building and Loan Association the sum of Five Thousand Pesos, securing payment with a mortgage upon a parcel of land with an area of 332 square meters situated at Barrio Concepcion, Malabon, Rizal, covered by a transfer certificate of title. Dominador Gregorio is now deceased, and Abiguel Reyes is now one of the plaintiffs.

Because the mortgagors failed to pay the amortizations agreed upon, the mortgage was foreclosed extrajudicially and sold at public auction by the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal on January 5, 1962, to the defendant Arsenio Reyes, the highest bidder. The corresponding certificate of sale was issued in his name. The consideration stated therein was Six Thousand Fifty Pesos, and it provided that the property sold could be redeemed within one year, or not later than January 5, 1963.

On January 3, 1963, two days before the period expired, Abiguel Reyes-Gregorio went to the office of the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal and tendered payment of Six Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-Six Pesos, which the sheriff received, issuing the corresponding official receipt on the same date. On April 19, 1963, she demanded from the defendant the execution of the corresponding deed of reconveyance, but he refused, claiming that she could no longer exercise the right of redemption because the period therefor had already expired. Hence the present suit.

Issues

• Whether or not the plaintiffs exercised their right of redemption in the manner provided by law when they tendered the redemption price to the sheriff who conducted the sale, rather than to the purchaser.
• Whether or not the redemption made on January 3, 1963 was timely and in accordance with law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, governs the right of redemption in extrajudicial foreclosure sales. The Court recognized that the appellees' right to redeem the properties sold at the extrajudicial foreclosure sale is clear under this provision. It provides:

Section 6. The mortgagor or his successor in interest may redeem the property sold at the auction sale within one year from and after the date of the sale.

This provision fixes the one-year period within which the redemption must be made, and the Court used it to confirm that the right of redemption existed and that the tender fell within the period.

Section 27 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Act 3135 as amended by Act 4118, is decisive of the issue of the manner of redemption. It provides:

Section 27. Who may redeem real property so sold, and the time and manner of redemption. — The payment of the redemption money shall be made to the purchaser or redemptioner, or for him to the officer who made the sale.

This provision identifies the persons to whom the redemption money may validly be paid, and it is the basis for holding that payment to the sheriff who made the sale is a valid exercise of the right.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the redemption was made in the manner provided by law. Section 27 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court allows payment of the redemption money to the purchaser or redemptioner, or for him to the officer who made the sale. The Court quoted the provision:

The payment of the redemption money should be made to the purchaser or redemptioner, or for him to the officer who made the sale.

The Court further held 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. It cited the earlier ruling in Enaje versus Vda. A. Escaño for this proposition. Because the tender was made to the sheriff who conducted the sale, the redemption was valid.

On the second issue, the Court held that the redemption was timely. The sale took place on January 5, 1962, and the certificate of sale provided that the property could be redeemed not later than January 5, 1963. The tender and receipt of the redemption price occurred on January 3, 1963, which was within the one-year period. The Court thus concluded that the redemption made in this case was timely and in accordance with law.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain these rules. First, under Section 6 of Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118, the mortgagor or his successor in interest may redeem the property sold at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale within one year from and after the date of the sale. Second, under Section 27 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the redemption money may be paid to the purchaser or redemptioner, or for him to the officer who made the sale. Third, 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 the tender is made within the redemption period. A tender to the sheriff who conducted the sale, made within the one-year period, is therefore a valid and timely exercise of the right of redemption.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision appealed from, with double costs imposed on the appellant. The plaintiffs won, and the defendant was ordered to comply with the judgment directing the collection of legal expenses and the cancellation of his title in favor of the plaintiff.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that payment of the redemption money to the officer who made the sale, within the redemption period, is a valid exercise of the right of redemption. Examiners like to use this case to test the manner and timeliness of redemption under Section 27 of Rule 39 in relation to Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118.