Torres v. Alamag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, Spouses Vihinzky Alamag and Aida A. Ngoju, are the registered owners of two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 106114 and 106115. These properties were subject to an extrajudicial foreclosure sale initiated by the Bank of the Philippine Islands due to an outstanding loan obligation. The properties were ultimately awarded to Spouses Rudy and Dominica Chua as the highest bidders for P310,000.00, with a Certificate of Sale issued on July 18, 1997, and registered on January 8, 1998. In a separate ejectment case (Civil Case No. R-39051), petitioner Ramon Torres obtained a favorable judgment against respondent Vihinzky Alamag, ordering Alamag to vacate the premises and pay P75,250.00 in rental arrearages, P20,000.00 for attorney's fees, and P5,000.00 for litigation expenses. This judgment became final and executory, leading to a Notice of Levy being annotated on the respondents' properties on June 26, 1998. Procedural History: Following the annotation of the Notice of Levy, respondent Alamag inquired about the redemption price. Petitioner Torres subsequently redeemed the two lots from the Spouses Chua on December 29, 1998, by paying P402,993.60 through the Office of the Clerk of Court, with an additional P22,000.00 for interest and taxes paid on January 8, 1999. However, on January 7, 1999, respondent Alamag also deposited P404,000.00 as redemption money with the Office of the Clerk of Court. The Office of the Clerk of Court did not issue a certificate of redemption to respondent Alamag due to the prior redemption by petitioner Torres. Petitioner Sheriff Jessie Belarmino then issued a Certificate of Redemption to petitioner Torres on January 12, 1999. Respondents filed a case for Redemption and Injunction with Prayer for TRO with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking to be declared the rightful redeemers. The RTC dismissed the respondents' complaint and awarded attorney's fees to the petitioners. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, holding that while both parties had the right to redeem, the respondents were the first to tender the full redemption price and thus should have been issued the certificate of redemption. The CA cancelled the certificate issued to Torres and declared the respondents as the valid redeemers. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: This case is before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the June 29, 2005 Decision and September 8, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The petitioners argue that the CA erred in allowing the respondents' appeal despite it being allegedly belatedly filed, in deviating from the agreed sole issue before the trial court, and in resolving a foreign issue by ignoring clear legal provisions and jurisprudence regarding the need to include taxes in the redemption price when no notice is filed. The Supreme Court, however, found that the appeal was timely filed based on the Neypes ruling and that the CA correctly addressed the issue of who was entitled to the certificate of redemption. The Court ultimately reversed the CA's decision, reinstating the RTC's ruling, finding that petitioner Torres' redemption payment was sufficient and that Sheriff Belarmino acted properly in issuing the certificate of redemption to him.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in allowing the appeal of respondents despite the alleged failure to appeal on time. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deviating from the agreed sole and legal issue posed for resolution before the trial court. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents were the ones entitled to a certificate of redemption, considering the amounts paid and the timing of the redemption.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The Court ruled that petitioner Ramon Torres was the valid redemptioner and was properly issued the certificate of redemption.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the appeal: The Court held that the appeal was timely filed. Citing Neypes v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated that a party-litigant is allowed a fresh period of 15 days within which to file a notice of appeal, counted from receipt of the order denying a motion for reconsideration. Since respondents received the denial of their motion for reconsideration on August 29, 2001, the last day to file their notice of appeal was September 13, 2001. Their filing on September 11, 2001, was well within the prescribed period. This ruling standardizes appeal periods and resolves confusion regarding their commencement. On the scope of issues resolved by the CA: The Court found no error in the CA deviating from the agreed sole issue. The main prayer in respondents' complaint was for the issuance of a certificate of redemption. The Pre-Trial Order explicitly included the issue of who had the right to redeem. Furthermore, respondents' Appellants' Brief addressed the trial court's alleged error in disregarding their tender of redemption. Therefore, the CA was compelled to determine who, between petitioner Torres and respondent Alamag, was entitled to the certificate of redemption, as this was the core issue of the case. On the entitlement to the certificate of redemption: The Court ruled that while petitioner Torres was indeed a valid redemptioner under Section 27(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the CA erred in concluding that respondents were entitled to the certificate of redemption due to their earlier tender of the full redemption price. The Court found that petitioner Torres' payment of ₱402,993.60 on December 29, 1998, was based on the sheriff's computation and already included the bid price, capital gains and documentary stamp taxes, registration fees, and interest for 18 months. The only amounts not included were realty taxes and their interest, which petitioner Torres paid on January 8, 1999, immediately upon being informed of the amount by the Spouses Chua. The Court cited Baluyut v. Poblete and Cayton v. Zeonnix Trading Corporation, holding that a purchaser is required to furnish copies of taxes paid to inform the redemptioner. If no such notice is given, the property may be redeemed without paying such assessments or taxes. Even if the redemptioner is not apprised of the taxes paid, the payment of the full purchase price and interest should be considered sufficient if the redemptioner immediately pays the additional amount for taxes upon notification, in consonance with the policy to aid the right of redemption. Therefore, petitioner Torres' redemption was deemed valid, and Sheriff Belarmino acted properly in issuing the Certificate of Redemption to him.
Main Doctrine
A redemptioner who is a creditor with a subsequent lien on the property sold at foreclosure is entitled to redeem the property. However, the validity of the redemption hinges on the tender of the full redemption price, which includes the purchase price, interest, taxes paid by the purchaser, and interest on said taxes. If the purchaser fails to inform the redemptioner of the taxes paid, the redemption may be considered valid even without immediate payment of taxes, provided the deficiency is paid promptly upon notification, in consonance with the policy to aid the right of redemption.