Basco v. Gonzalez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership of two parcels of land. Manuel Ernesto Gonzalez was the original owner, but the properties were sold at public auction due to outstanding judgments against him. One sale was to Cipriano P. Primicias for P2,000 on February 12, 1931, in civil case No. 5515. Another sale occurred on February 6, 1932, to E. G. Turner for P989.25 in civil case No. 6201. 2. Procedural History: Manuel Ernesto Gonzalez sought to redeem the properties. On February 11, 1932, he deposited P2,240 with the provincial sheriff for the redemption from Cipriano P. Primicias. The sheriff issued a certificate of redemption. However, Primicias refused to accept the money and subsequently, on February 13, 1932, the former deputy sheriff, Theo R. Pasion, executed a deed of conveyance in favor of Primicias. Later, on March 21, 1932, Primicias executed a purported sale of the lands to Alejo Basco for P10,000. Gonzalez later redeemed the property from E. G. Turner on June 11, 1932. Alejo Basco then filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan to be declared owner and to obtain a certificate of title, which was opposed by Manuel Ernesto Gonzalez. The trial court declared Gonzalez the owner, finding the conveyances to Primicias and Basco null and void. 3. The Petition: Alejo Basco, as petitioner-appellant, filed this petition for review of the lower court's decision. The assignments of error challenge the trial court's findings regarding Gonzalez's right to redeem, the validity of the redemption made through the provincial sheriff, and the invalidity of the deeds of sale to Primicias and Basco. The appellant argues that Gonzalez should have redeemed from Turner first and that the redemption was not legally executed. The appellant seeks to be declared the owner of the lands and, alternatively, reimbursement of P10,000.
Issue(s)
Whether Manuel Ernesto Gonzalez had the right to redeem the properties from Cipriano P. Primicias without first redeeming them from E. G. Turner. Whether the offer to redeem made by Manuel Ernesto Gonzalez to the provincial sheriff was legal and valid. Whether the deed of final sale executed by Deputy Provincial Sheriff Theo R. Pasion in favor of Cipriano P. Primicias, and the subsequent sale by Primicias to Alejo Basco, are invalid and without legal effect.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, declaring Manuel Ernesto Gonzalez as the owner of the two parcels of land in question and holding the deed of conveyance to Cipriano P. Primicias and the subsequent sale to Alejo Basco as null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Manuel Ernesto Gonzalez had the right to redeem the properties from Cipriano P. Primicias without first redeeming them from E. G. Turner: The Court held that Gonzalez retained the right to redeem the property from Primicias. The property was sold to Primicias subject to Gonzalez's right to redeem within one year. While the sheriff sold Gonzalez's remaining interest in the property to Turner a few days before the redemption period expired, this did not extinguish Gonzalez's right to redeem from Primicias. Any redemption effected by Gonzalez would naturally benefit Turner, and Primicias, as the purchaser at the first sale, had no right to object to the redemption by the judgment debtor. On the issue of whether the offer to redeem made by Manuel Ernesto Gonzalez to the provincial sheriff was legal and valid: The Court found this contention untenable. Citing Papa vs. Manalo, the Court stated that while the purchaser at auction is the only one entitled to receive the redemption price, the redemptioner may deposit the amount with the sheriff for delivery to the purchaser, especially if the latter refuses to accept it or if there is a fear that the redemption period might lapse. In this case, Deputy Sheriff Theo R. Pasion, who conducted the sale, was no longer in office and resided in another province, and Primicias was unwilling to accept the redemption money. Under these circumstances, depositing the sum with the provincial sheriff was a legal and valid method of redemption. The Court also referenced Enage vs. Viuda e Hijos de F. Escaño, holding that it is the sheriff's duty to accept payment and issue a certificate of redemption when the purchaser refuses to permit redemption. On the issue of whether the deed of final sale executed by Deputy Provincial Sheriff Theo R. Pasion in favor of Cipriano P. Primicias, and the subsequent sale by Primicias to Alejo Basco, are invalid and without legal effect: The Court concluded that these sales were indeed invalid. Since the redemption by Manuel Ernesto Gonzalez was found to be legal and valid, the subsequent deed of conveyance executed by the former deputy sheriff in favor of Primicias, despite the redemption, was null and void. Consequently, the sale by Primicias to Alejo Basco, derived from a void title, was also without legal effect. The Court noted that section 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure, concerning the execution of deeds by successors or former officers, was not applicable here as the issue concerned a certificate of redemption, not an officer's deed of conveyance.
Main Doctrine
A judgment debtor retains the right to redeem property sold at a sheriff's sale, even if the right of redemption itself was subsequently sold to another party, provided the redemption is made within the statutory period. Redemption can be legally effected by depositing the redemption price and interest with the provincial sheriff, especially when the original purchaser refuses to accept payment or when the deputy sheriff who conducted the sale is unavailable or unwilling to act.