Title
Barrozo vs. Macaraeg
Case
G.R. No. L-1282
Decision Date
Apr 25, 1949
Barrozo failed to redeem mortgaged properties within the statutory period despite war-related confusion; SC upheld auction sale, rejecting redemption claims post-deadline.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1282)

Facts:

  1. Ownership and Mortgage:

    • Plaintiff Juan S. Barrozo was the owner of eight parcels of land in Pangasinan.
    • On February 15, 1940, he mortgaged these properties to the Agricultural & Industrial Bank for P1,400.
  2. Debt and Execution Sale:

    • On January 23, 1941, Tableria B and S filed a complaint against Barrozo to recover P446.41 plus costs.
    • A judgment was rendered against Barrozo, and execution was issued.
    • On April 28, 1941, the properties were sold at public auction to Jose B. Biagtan for P446.41.
  3. Transfer of Ownership:

    • On August 21, 1942, the provincial sheriff executed a deed of final sale in favor of Biagtan.
    • On November 21, 1942, Biagtan sold the properties to defendants Marcelino T. Macaraeg and Asuncion V. Sison-Macaraeg.
    • The defendants paid the mortgage debt to the bank on February 26, 1943.
  4. Redemption Period:

    • The redemption period under the law was one year, expiring on April 28, 1942.
    • Barrozo attempted to repurchase the properties in December 1942 but failed to tender the redemption price.
    • He filed a complaint to repurchase the properties in February 1943, after the redemption period had expired.
  5. War and Its Effects:

    • Barrozo argued that the Japanese occupation during World War II suspended the redemption period.
    • The trial court found that even if the period of confusion (January to May 1942) was deducted, Barrozo’s attempt to repurchase in February 1943 was still untimely.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Japanese occupation suspended or extended the one-year redemption period.
  2. Whether the trial court erred in not allowing Barrozo to redeem the properties after the statutory period had expired.
  3. Whether the price paid at the auction sale was so inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court.
  4. Whether the debt moratorium under Executive Order No. 32 suspended the payment of the redemption money.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.