Reyes-Gregorio v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 8, 1958, spouses Dominador Gregorio and Abiguel Reyes-Gregorio borrowed P5,000.00 from Manila Building and Loan Association, secured by a mortgage on a parcel of land. Due to failure to pay amortizations, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed, and the property was sold at public auction on January 5, 1962, to defendant-appellant Arsenio Reyes as the highest bidder for P6,050.00. A certificate of sale was issued, providing a one-year period for redemption, expiring on January 5, 1963. Procedural History: On January 3, 1963, appellee Abiguel Reyes-Gregorio tendered payment of P6,776.00 to the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal for the redemption of the property, and the sheriff issued a receipt. On April 19, 1963, she demanded a deed of reconveyance from the defendant-appellant, who refused, claiming the redemption period had expired. This led to the filing of the present suit. The Petition: The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding the redemption to be in accordance with law. The court ordered the sheriff to collect legal expenses incurred by the defendant (sheriff's fees, assessments, documentary stamps) not included in the initial redemption price and deliver them to the defendant. Upon compliance, the Register of Deeds was to be ordered to cancel the title issued to the defendant and issue a new one in the plaintiff's name. The defendant-appellant interposed the present appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the redemption made by appellee Abiguel Reyes-Gregorio was in accordance with law. Whether the period for redemption had expired at the time of the tender of payment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that the redemption made by appellee Abiguel Reyes-Gregorio was timely and in accordance with law. The Court imposed double costs on the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the redemption made by appellee Abiguel Reyes-Gregorio was in accordance with law: The Court held that the redemption was in accordance with law. The facts, being undisputed and covered by a stipulation of facts, clearly showed that appellee Abiguel Reyes-Gregorio went to the office of the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal on January 3, 1963, which was within the redemption period. She tendered payment of P6,776.00 for the redemption of the property, and the sheriff received this amount, issuing the corresponding official receipt. This act of tendering payment to the officer who conducted the sale within the statutory period is precisely what the law requires for a valid redemption. The Court emphasized that the duty of the officer who made the sale is to accept the tender of payment and execute the corresponding certificate of redemption, provided such tender is made within the period for the purpose, citing the case of Enaje vs. Vda. A. Escaño. Therefore, the redemption was legally effected. On whether the period for redemption had expired at the time of the tender of payment: The Court ruled that the period for redemption had not expired. The extrajudicial foreclosure sale occurred on January 5, 1962, and the certificate of sale provided for a redemption period of one year, which would expire on January 5, 1963. Appellee Abiguel Reyes-Gregorio made her tender of payment on January 3, 1963, which is two days before the expiration of the redemption period. This date falls squarely within the one-year period allowed for redemption under Section 6 of Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118. The fact that the defendant-appellant refused to execute a deed of reconveyance based on the claim that the period had expired was found to be without merit. The timely tender of payment to the sheriff, who is the designated officer to receive such payments for redemption, preserved the appellee's right to redeem the property.
Main Doctrine
A redemption made by tendering payment to the officer who made the sale within the period for redemption, and which payment is subsequently accepted by the purchaser or redemptioner, is valid and in accordance with law, even if certain incidental expenses like sheriff's fees were not initially included in the tendered amount but were later paid.