De Casimiro v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Maria V. de Casimiro mortgaged her property to secure loans for her sons, Eduardo and Alfonso V. Casimiro. Upon default, the mortgages were foreclosed extrajudicially, with Traders Royal Bank as the highest bidder. Subsequently, Eliseo Pambid obtained a favorable judgment against Eduardo V. Casimiro in a separate case, which led to the levy of Eduardo's right of redemption over the mortgaged property. 2. Procedural History: Pambid, through an alias writ of execution, levied upon Eduardo Casimiro's right of redemption. Pambid then exercised this right, paying the redemption price to Traders Royal Bank and subsequently obtaining a consolidated title to the property. Maria V. de Casimiro filed a complaint for reconveyance against Pambid and other officials, alleging the illegality of the levy and redemption. This complaint was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeals denied Maria's petition for certiorari, ruling that an appeal, not certiorari, was the proper remedy and that Pambid's redemption was lawful. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, Maria V. de Casimiro, seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision. Her primary argument is that Eduardo V. Casimiro's waiver of the right to redeem was invalid as she, the property owner, did not authorize it. She contends the right of redemption belonged to her. The petition also implicitly challenges the Court of Appeals' procedural ruling. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of the levy on and subsequent exercise of the right of redemption by Pambid.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the proper remedy was an appeal and not a petition for certiorari. Whether the redemption of the property by Eliseo Pambid was lawful. Whether Eduardo V. Casimiro's waiver of the right to redeem his mother's property was valid.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the proper remedy: The Court of Appeals correctly held that the proper remedy for the petitioner was an appeal from the order dismissing her complaint for reconveyance, not a petition for certiorari. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is only available when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, an appeal was available to challenge the dismissal of the complaint. The petitioner's resort to certiorari was therefore improper. On the lawfulness of the redemption by Eliseo Pambid: The redemption by Eliseo Pambid was lawful. The property was mortgaged by Maria V. de Casimiro to secure loans for her sons, Eduardo V. Casimiro and Alfonso V. Casimiro. After extrajudicial foreclosure and sale, the right of redemption belonged to the debtor, Eduardo V. Casimiro, as provided by Section 6 of Act No. 3135. Eduardo V. Casimiro, when asked by the bank, confirmed he would not redeem the property. Pambid, as a judgment creditor of Eduardo Casimiro, had his right to redemption levied upon and subsequently exercised it by paying the redemption price to the bank. The petitioner, as the owner-mortgagor, did not exercise her right to redeem before the redemption period expired. On the validity of Eduardo V. Casimiro's waiver of the right to redeem: Eduardo V. Casimiro's waiver of the right to redeem was valid. Section 6 of Act No. 3135 explicitly states that "the debtor, his successors in interest or any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of said debtor... may redeem the same." In this case, Eduardo V. Casimiro was the debtor who obtained the loan secured by the mortgage on his mother's property. His confirmation to the bank that he would not redeem the property, coupled with the subsequent levy and exercise of redemption by Pambid, effectively constituted a waiver or forfeiture of his right to redeem. The petitioner's claim that she, as the owner, should have had the right to redeem and that Eduardo could not waive it without her authorization is misplaced, as the right of redemption under the cited law pertains to the debtor.
Main Doctrine
The right of redemption in extrajudicial foreclosure belongs to the debtor, not necessarily the owner of the mortgaged property, and a waiver of this right by the debtor is valid if made in accordance with law. The proper remedy against an order dismissing a complaint for reconveyance, when the redemption period has already expired, is an appeal, not a petition for certiorari.