Tibajia v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: A judgment in a money claim case, Civil Case No. 50315, became final and executory, leading to the satisfaction of judgment against spouses Carmen Bascon Tibajia and Norberto Tibajia, Jr. This involved the auction sale of twenty-one parcels of land owned by the judgment debtors. The private respondent, Aileen Go, emerged as the highest bidder in the auction sale held on April 12, 1985, acquiring the properties for P330,500.00, with a certificate of sale registered on April 15, 1985. 2. Procedural History: On April 2, 1986, Aurora Vito, sister of Norberto Tibajia, Jr. and claiming to be a co-owner, offered to redeem the properties. The redemption was initially allowed by the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, with a payment of P369,994.20. Private respondent Aileen Go opposed this redemption, arguing it was not made by the judgment debtor and not addressed to the proper party. Subsequently, Go sought a final deed of sale, asserting the redemption period had expired. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch 154, initially found the redemption valid in an August 15, 1986 order, denying Go's motion for reconsideration on April 15, 1987. However, the RTC later denied Go's notice of appeal on June 26, 1987, stating the judgment was final and Go was not a party. Go then filed a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which, in a December 2, 1987 decision, found the denial of the appeal arbitrary and granted the petition, annulling the RTC's order denying the appeal. A motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Carmen Bascon Tibajia, Norberto Tibajia, Jr., and Aurora T. Vito, are seeking review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision. They raise two main issues: first, whether Aileen Go, not being a party to the original case and after the judgment became final, is entitled to appeal; and second, whether the redemption made by Aurora Vito, as a co-owner and attorney-in-fact for the judgment debtors, was valid. The petitioners argue that the redemption was timely and validly made under the Rules of Court and the Civil Code, and that the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the RTC's order that upheld the redemption.
Issue(s)
Whether private respondent Aileen Go, as the auction vendee, is entitled to appeal an order in a case where she was not an original party and the judgment had become final and executory. Whether the redemption made by petitioner Aurora Vito, claiming to be a co-owner and attorney-in-fact for the judgment debtors, was valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the August 15, 1986 order of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 154, which found the redemption valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On Aileen Go's right to appeal: While the CA found the RTC's denial of the appeal to be an act of grave abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court's ultimate decision to reinstate the RTC's order granting redemption implicitly means that the issue of Go's right to appeal, in the context of the RTC's erroneous denial of the appeal, was resolved in favor of allowing the appeal to be given due course to correct the perceived error in the redemption order. However, the Supreme Court's final disposition focused on the merits of the redemption itself, effectively overriding the procedural issue of appealability by directly ruling on the validity of the redemption. On the validity of the redemption: The Court affirmed the RTC's finding that the redemption was valid. The redemption amount was paid on April 2, 1986, which was prior to the expiration of the redemption period on April 15, 1986. The payment was made in the name of "Norberto Tibajia, et al.," indicating it was for the judgment debtors. The Court noted that it was not shown that the judgment debtors opposed Aurora Vito's claim of co-ownership or her capacity as their representative. The Court emphasized that the policy of the law is to aid, rather than defeat, the right of redemption, citing Tioseco v. Court of Appeals and Javellana v. Mirasol and Nuñez. Therefore, giving due course to the redemption served the ends of justice. The Court also clarified that the redemption period, based on the 12 months from registration of the certificate of sale on April 15, 1985, expired on April 15, 1986, and the payment on April 2, 1986, was within this period. The Court applied Section 29, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which allows redemption by the judgment debtor or his legal representatives, or by a co-owner. The Court found Aurora Vito qualified under these provisions.
Main Doctrine
A redemption made by a co-owner in her own capacity and as attorney-in-fact for the judgment debtors, within the redemption period and for the correct amount, is valid and should be given due course, even if the redemptioner is not the judgment debtor herself.