Case Digest (G.R. No. 167420)
Facts:
Allied Banking Corporation v. Ruperto Jose H. Mateo, G.R. No. 167420, June 05, 2009, Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.
In February 1996, Ruperto Jose Mateo (respondent) obtained a P950,000 loan from Allied Banking Corporation (petitioner) and executed a real estate mortgage over a titled parcel (TCT No. 236351) and a promissory note to secure the debt. After respondent defaulted, petitioner initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure; the property was sold at public auction for P1,531,474.53 with petitioner as sole and highest bidder. A Certificate of Sale was issued and registered on July 21, 1999.
Respondent, through his attorney-in-fact Warlita Mateo, sent several faxed letters indicating his desire to redeem and allegedly consigned P1.1 million with the Land Bank. On July 21, 2000—the last day of the statutory one-year redemption period—respondent filed an action for legal redemption with a prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35, Santiago City (SCA No. 35-0145). Petitioner later consolidated ownership and obtained TCT No. 311043 in its name (issued March 2, 2001).
At pretrial (September 18, 2002) respondent offered to redeem by paying P1,531,474.53, but petitioner refused and the parties agreed to submit the case for summary judgment. On October 21, 2004 the RTC rendered judgment allowing respondent to redeem upon payment of P1,531,474.53 plus one percent interest for one month, ordered petitioner to accept tender and deliver a certificate of redemption, and awarded P30,000 as attorney’s fees; the RTC reasoned that the redemption action was timely, respondent had manifested intent and had consigned funds, and it applied Section 28, Rule 39 (and Act No. 3135) principles. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 10, 2005.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, contending the RTC erred as a matter of law by (1) treating respondent’s earlier offers and the Land Bank consignation as sufficient tender and consignation, and (2) applying Section 28, Ru...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent still have a valid right to redeem the foreclosed property?
- Should Section 78 of the General Banking Act govern the computation of the redemption price in t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)