RODOLFO GERONIMO, PLAINTIFF VS. MUNICIPALITY OF CABA, LA UNION, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. FELIPE MANGASER, PURCHASER-PETITIONER AND APPELLANT.

By virtue of a writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of La
Union in Civil Case No. 1002 entitled Rodolfo Geronimo, plaintiff, versus
Municipality of Caba, La Unión, defendant, the sheriff sold at public auction on
July 16, 1957 to Dr. Felipe Mangaser a parcel of land situated in the same
province for the sum of P1,011.81. The property was subject of redemption within
one year from said date. Exactly one year from said date, or on July 16, 1958,
the municipality of Caba, through its mayor, redeemed the property by depositing
the purchase price, including interest, with the office of the provincial
sheriff. Thereupon, the sheriff issued a certificate of redemption on the same
date which was duly registered in the office of the register of deeds.

On September 13, 1958, the purchaser filed with the court in the same case a
petition to require the sheriff to execute a final deed of sale in his favor
contending that the municipality of Caba, owner of the property, has failed to
redeem it within the period of one year. In support of his petition, petitioner
filed a memorandum on October 4, 1958, to which an answer was filed in behalf of
the municipality, praying that an order be issued declaring the redemption valid
and restoring the ownership of the property to the municipality.

After the parties had filed memoranda in support of this respective
contentions, the court issued an order from which we quote:

“By affirmation in the certificate of redemption acknowledged by the
Provincial Sheriff and registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds on
July 16, 1958, it appears that the defendant municipality through its mayor
redeemed the property depositing with the Provincial Sheriff the amount of the
redemption money. Said document being in due form and substance and executed
within the one year period provided by the Rules of Court, this Court does not
need to inquire from the judgment debtor’duly represented, by its Municipal
Mayor as to where the money used to redeem the property came from. The actuation
of the Municipal Mayor in securing the amount used to redeem, the said property
for the defendant municipality cannot.be inquired into in this proceeding as the
Mayor just complied with his official duty to protect the interest of the
municipality. If the Mayor secured the money illegally as insinuated by
petitioner-purchaser, then the real aggrieved parties who own the money and who
may be prejudiced by the acts of the Mayor, may bring the corresponding
appropriate action before the competent court to protect their rights.

“IN VIEW THEREOF, it appearing that the defendant municipality has already
redeemed the property, the herein petition to compel the sheriff to execute a
final certificate of sale is hereby denied and the purchaser shall have the
right to withdraw the money deposited with the Provincial Sheriff for the
redemption of said property. The Municipality of Caba shall be restored to the
possession of the property which it has already redeemed in accordance with law
and the Rules of Court.”

Petitioner has appealed and the case is now before us on questions of law by
virtue of the certification made by the Court of Appeals.

It is contended that Mayor Manuel Fonbuena cannot redeem the property in
behalf of the municipality of Caba, La Unión, without first obtaining the
consent or authority of the municipal council, and having done so without
authority the redemption is invalid. It is likewise contended that even if the
redemption was made with the authority of said body, the redemption would still
not be valid because the money with which it was effected did not come from the
municipality but from the Parents-Teachers Association of Caba, of which Mayor
Fonbuena was the president. It is finally contended that the redemption should
be invalidated because the municipal council in a resolution passed subsequent
thereto declared that the mayor has acted in excess of his power and authority
in making the redemption because he misrepresented that the redemption was being
made by the municipality when in fact and in truth the latter was not
financially able to do so for lack of funds even if the money was taken from the
Parents-Teachers Association.

There is no merit in this contention. There is no dispute that the person who
effected the redemption is Mayor Fonbuena of the municipality of Caba and that
when he tendered the redemption money to the sheriff he acted in his capacity as
such, otherwise the sheriff would not have allowed the redemption considering
that the property belonged to the municipality. The fact that the redemption
money did not come from the coffers of the municipality but from the
Parents-Teachers Association of Caba which, upon the request of its President,
Mayor Fonbuena, agreed to lend its own money in order that the redemption may be
effected and the property restored to the municipality, cannot taint the
transaction with invalidity it being a mere accommodation or help that said
association deemed it wise to extend to the municipality. The money for the
redemption of the property could have even come from a philanthropist, or a
civic organization, and yet no one would dare dispute its propriety, for the
same is intended for a worthy cause.

It is true that when the redemption was made the Mayor was not authorized by
any resolution of the municipal council nor was there any appropriation by said
council of the money needed for the redemption, but the lack of such resolution
would not also taint with invalidity the redemption for the mayor, as chief
executive, was in duty bound to take such step as may be necessary to protect
the interest of his municipality. It should be noted that the property belongs
to the municipality and it was his bounden duty to redeem it in order that it
may not be lost.

In this connection, we find correct the following comment of the lower court:
“The actuation of the Municipal Mayor in securing the. amount used to redeem the
said property for the defendant municipality cannot be inquired into in this
proceeding as the Mayor just complied with his official duty to protect the
interest of said municipality. If the Mayor secured the money illegally as
insinuated by the petitioner-purchaser, then the real aggrieved parties who
owned the money and who may be prejudiced by the acts of the Mayor, may bring
the corresponding appropriate action before the competent court to protect their
rights.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against
appellant.

Bengzon, C.J., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.