Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rosario J. Mariano mortgaged a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-30034. The property was sold at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale to Arsenio Reyes for P2,670.00. Within one month after the sale, Mariano deposited P2,706.70 with the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, representing the purchase price plus 1% interest. Reyes refused to accept the deposit, alleging it lacked amounts for assessment taxes, fees, stamps, and commission, which would result in a shortfall of the amount he paid. Procedural History: The Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan filed an interpleader to determine the validity of Mariano's redemption. The Court of First Instance of Bulacan upheld Mariano's claim, ruling that she had duly redeemed the property. Reyes appealed this decision. The Petition: Arsenio Reyes appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance, raising issues regarding the validity of redemption made to the sheriff and the sufficiency of the redemption price.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in not holding that in extrajudicial foreclosure sales, redemption may not be made to the sheriff or officer who conducted the sale in the absence of any showing that the purchaser had unlawfully refused tender of the redemption price. Whether the trial court erred in finding against the evidence that defendant Rosario J. Mariano had effected a valid and binding redemption of her property in spite of its finding of the insufficiency of the alleged redemption price. Whether the trial court erred in rendering judgment in favor of defendant Rosario J. Mariano ordering appellant to take delivery of the redemption deposit and ordering appellee, the Sheriff of Bulacan, to execute the corresponding certificate of redemption in favor of Rosario J. Mariano, after the latter shall have satisfied all legal and valid claims for reimbursement by appellant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, upholding the validity of Rosario J. Mariano's redemption of the property. The appeal was dismissed as manifestly frivolous, with triple costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of redemption made to the sheriff: The Court reiterated that under Section 31 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, payments for redemption may be made to the purchaser or redemptioner, or for him to the officer who made the sale. This provision explicitly allows the redemptioner to deposit the redemption money with the sheriff. The Court cited previous rulings in Javellana vs. Mirasol and Enage vs. Vda. de Hijos de F. Escaño which held that it was manifestly unnecessary for the redemptioner to seek out the purchaser for the purpose of making payment to him, and that depositing the redemption price with the sheriff is a valid mode of redemption, especially when the purchaser refuses to accept it. The argument that redemption can only be made directly to the purchaser or when the purchaser unlawfully refuses tender is untenable. On the sufficiency of the redemption price: The Court noted that the trial court's finding of insufficiency was not clearly established or was based on a misinterpretation of the law. The deposit made by Mariano with the Provincial Sheriff, representing the purchase price plus one percentum interest thereon and sheriff's fees, was deemed sufficient in contemplation of the Rules. The appellant's contention that the deposit lacked amounts for assessment taxes, fees, stamps, and commission was not sufficiently proven to invalidate the redemption. The primary purpose of the deposit was to satisfy the purchaser's purchase price plus the stipulated interest and lawful fees, which was met by Mariano's deposit. On the trial court's judgment: The Court found no error in the trial court's judgment ordering the appellant to accept the redemption deposit and the sheriff to execute the certificate of redemption. The trial court correctly applied the provisions of the Rules of Court regarding redemption. The appellant's persistent refusal to accept the redemption and his filing of a frivolous appeal, despite clear jurisprudence on the matter, were noted. The Court emphasized that the appellant had a history of using the judicial process to delay fulfillment of his obligations in similar cases, which prejudiced the speedy administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
A mortgagor may validly redeem property sold at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale by depositing the redemption price, including interest and sheriff's fees, with the Provincial Sheriff, even if the purchaser refuses to accept the deposit, as the sheriff is authorized by law to accept such payments.