Ysmael v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners obtained a favorable judgment for a sum of money against private respondents in 1980. After the judgment was revived in 1990 and affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, a writ of execution was issued in 1993. The rights and interests of private respondents in several parcels of land were levied and sold at public auction to petitioners on March 15, 1995, for P700,000.00. The certificate of sale was registered on July 25, 1995, stating that the redemption period would expire one year from registration. Procedural History: On July 16, 1996, within the supposed redemption period, private respondents' counsel notified petitioners' counsel and the deputy sheriff of their intent to redeem and requested a computation of the redemption price. Petitioners and the sheriff did not reply. Believing the redemption period ended on July 25, 1996 (due to a leap year calculation and the wording of the certificate of sale), private respondent Pacifico Lejano tendered payment via cashier's checks on that date, which was refused by petitioners' counsel. The following day, July 26, 1996, private respondents filed a motion for consignation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion, allowing consignation and directing petitioners to provide a statement of account. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, and their subsequent petition for certiorari and mandamus was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the redemption period expired on July 19, 1996, that the tender of payment on July 25, 1996, was late, invalid due to the counsel's alleged lack of authority to receive payment, and insufficient in amount. They also contend that they are entitled to a writ of possession.
Issue(s)
Whether the private respondents validly exercised their right of redemption. Whether the tender of payment made by private respondents was valid and sufficient. Whether petitioners are entitled to a writ of possession.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the private respondents validly exercised their right of redemption. Consequently, petitioners are not entitled to a writ of possession.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the redemption: The Court found that while the twelve-month redemption period technically expired on July 19, 1996, there was an honest mistake on the part of the private respondents regarding the exact expiration date. Private respondents had seasonably notified petitioners' counsel and the sheriff on July 16 and 17, 1996, within the twelve-month period, of their intention to redeem and requested the redemption price. The failure of petitioners and the sheriff to respond, coupled with the refusal of payment by petitioners' counsel, created circumstances that made it inequitable to deny the right of redemption. The Court emphasized the policy of liberality in favor of redemption and the principle of acting with justice, honesty, and good faith. The subsequent consignation on July 26, 1996, was considered an affirmation of their timely notice to redeem. On the validity and sufficiency of the tender of payment: The Court held that the tender of payment via cashier's checks was valid, citing Ramon Tan v. Court of Appeals, which established that cashier's checks are substantially as good as money. Regarding the sufficiency of the amount, the Court noted that the P84,000.00 tendered represented 1% interest per month on the purchase price for 12 months. The Court found this claim baseless, as P84,000.00 is indeed the correct interest at 1% per month for 12 months on P700,000.00. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the issue of Atty. Arguelles' authority to receive payment was not raised in the lower courts and thus could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Even if the amount was slightly short, the RTC allowed consignation and directed the parties to settle the correct amount, which aligns with the liberal construction of redemption rules. On the entitlement to a writ of possession: The issuance of a writ of possession under Rule 39, Section 35 of the former Rules of Court is contingent upon the consolidation of ownership in the purchaser due to the failure of the redemptioner to exercise their right. Since the Court found that private respondents had validly exercised their right of redemption within the prescribed period, petitioners were not entitled to a writ of possession. The ownership had not yet consolidated in their name as the redemption was deemed validly perfected.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that the policy of the law is liberality in favor of redemption, and that circumstances showing good faith in attempting to exercise the right of redemption, even if slightly delayed due to honest mistake or inaction by the other party, may warrant allowing the redemption.