MARIA V. DE CASIMIRO, PETITIONER, VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. MARCELINO N. SAYO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH XXXII, CALOO…

The petitioner seeks a review of the decision dated July 28, 1983
of the Court of Appeals in AC-G.R. No. 00120-SP, entitled “Maria V. de
Casimiro vs. Hon. Marcelino N. Sayo, et al.,” denying the petition for certiorari
against the order in Civil Case No. C-9523 of the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, which dismissed the petitioner’s complaint for reconveyance of real
property.

The Court of Appeals held that: (1) the proper remedy of the petitioner, was an appeal, not a petition
for certiorari; and (2) the redemption of the property by the private
respondent, Eliseo Pambid, was lawful because the debtor-mortgagor Eduardo
Casimiro (petitioner’s son), had waived and forfeited the right to redeem.

On August 5, 1979, herein petitioner Maria V. de Casimiro had
caused the constitution of two real estate mortgages on a parcel of land
consisting of 5,109 square meters registered in her name in Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 3573 (38903) of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, as
security for two separate loans, both in the amount of P75,000.00 obtained by
her sons, Eduardo V. Casimiro and Alfonso V. Casimiro, from the Traders Royal
Bank. Upon the borrowers’ default, the
two mortgages were foreclosed extrajudicially. The property was sold at a public auction where the Traders Royal Bank was
the highest bidder. Two certificates of
sale both dated August 14, 1979, were issued to the bank by the Deputy Sheriff
of Pasig, Metro Manila.

The two certificates of sale referred to were inscribed in the
books of the Register of Deeds on September 14, 1979 and January 11, 1980,
respectively. The one-year period for
the legal redemption of the property under the latter instrument, with which
the issues in the present case are concerned, would therefore expire on January
11, 1981.

The private respondent, Eliseo Pambid, had filed a complaint
against Eduardo V. Casimiro and Hijos de P. Casimiro, Inc. for Specific
Performance and/or Compliance in the Court of First Instance of Caloocan City,
where it was docketed as Civil Case No. C-7669. On October 1, 1979, judgment by default was rendered in Pambid’s
favor which among other things, ordered Eduardo Casimiro:

“xxx                      xxx          xxx

“3. To pay
plaintiff [Pambid] the amount of P200,000.00 as moral damages and P200,000.00
as exemplary damages and P10,000,00 by way of and as attorney’s fees;

“In the event that Titles to the aforesaid properties could
not be delivered for reasons that the same has been alienated to other parties,
the defendants are hereby ordered to:

“1. To reimburse
the plaintiff the amount of P101,000.57 paid to defendants for the purchase of
lots 21, 22, 23 and 24 of Block IV of defendants’ subdivision with compound
interest from date of each payment and until such amount has been fully paid;

“2. To pay
plaintiff the amount of P200,000.00 as moral damages; and P200,000.00 as
exemplary damages; P10,000.00 by way of and as attorney’s fees; and
costs.” (p. 31, Rollo.)

An Alias Writ of Execution dated December 4, 1980, was issued in
Civil Case No. C-7669 authorizing the levy on “all the rights, titles, shares,
interests, claims and participation” of the defendants therein “especially
their rights as redemptioner” in the parcel of land covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3573 (383903) (p. 31, Rollo).

On January 6, 1981, a Certificate of Sale was issued by the
respondent Deputy Sheriff to private respondent Eliseo Pambid conveying to him
Eduardo Casimiro’s interest in said parcel of land (p. 53, Rollo).

When Pambid offered to redeem the property from the Bank, the
Bank called up Eduardo Casimiro to find out if he would redeem the
mortgage. He gave a negative answer.

On January 8, 1981, Pambid paid the redemption price to Traders
Royal Bank. Neither Eduardo V. Casimiro
nor the herein petitioner Maria V. Casimiro, as the mortgagor, exercised the
rights of legal redemption before and after private respondent
paid the redemption money.

On June 25, 1981, an Order was issued in Civil Case No. 7669
directing the issuance of the corresponding writ of possession to Pambid.

Subsequently, ownership over the parcel of land covered by TCT
No. 3573 (383903) was consolidated in Pambid and Transfer Certificate of Title
No. R-41218 was issued in his name.

On September 7, 1981, Civil Case No. C-9523 for reconveyance was
instituted in the Court of First Instance of Caloocan City by Maria V. de
Casimiro against Pambid, the Ex-Oficio Sheriff Rodrigo N. Saure, and the
Register of Deeds, District III of Caloocan City. She alleged that the levy upon the right of redemption of the
land covered by TCT No. 3573 (383903) was illegal because she was the owner of
the land; she was not a party in said Civil Case No. C-7669 and Eduardo V.
Casimiro and Hijos de P. Casimiro, Inc., defendants in Civil Case No. C-7669,
were not the owners of the land.

The main argument in the petition for review is that Eduardo V.
Casimiro’s waiver of the right to redeem the mortgaged property of his mother
was invalid because she did not authorize him to waive said right of redemption
which allegedly belongs to her as owner of the property.

That argument is not well taken. Petitioner’s property was mortgaged to the Bank by her son, Eduardo V.
Casimiro, with her consent. Section 6
of Article 3135 provides that the debtor (Eduardo Casimiro), not the owner of
the mortgaged property (the petitioner), may exercise the right of redemption.

“SEC. 6. In all
cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made under the special power
hereinbefore 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.” (Underlining
supplied.)

The petitioner’s allegation that she could have redeemed the
property from the bank on or before the deadline on January 11, 1981, had not
Pambid exercised the right of redemption on January 8, 1981, is a hollow boast
for there is no evidence that she tendered the redemption money to the bank
before the redemption period expired. Her complaint in Civil Case No. C-9523 against Pambid and the sheriff to
compel them to reconvey the property to her, was filed on September 7, 1981 or
almost nine (9) months after the redemption period had expired, and was not
accompanied by a tender of the redemption price (representing Eduardo’s
obligation to the Bank) which Pambid paid to the bank.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of
the Court of Appeals, the petition for review is denied for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.