G.R. No. L-1282 - Barrozo vs. Macaraeg

The plaintiff, Juan S. Barrozo, was the owner of several parcels of land which later became subject to an execution sale.

Prior litigation had been initiated through a complaint filed on January 23, 1941, in Civil Case No. 438 before the justice of the peace court of Mangaldan, where Barrozo was ordered to pay a debt of P446.41, plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.

Following the judgment, the properties were levied upon by the provincial sheriff of Pangasinan under the order of the justice of the peace of Mangaldan.

The properties were publicly auctioned on April 28, 1941, with Jose B. Biagtan emerging as the highest bidder.

A deed of final sale was executed on August 21, 1942, by the provincial sheriff in favor of Jose S. Biagtan.

Subsequently, on November 21, 1942, Jose S. Biagtan sold and transferred all rights, title, and interest in the properties to the defendant spouses, Marcelino T. Macaraeg and Asuncion V. Sison-Macaraeg.

On February 15, 1940, the plaintiff had mortgaged the eight parcels of land to the Agricultural & Industrial Bank for an amount of P1,400, as evidenced by the corresponding deed of mortgage and promissory note.

The defendant spouses discharged this mortgage obligation by paying P1,646.51 to the Agricultural and Industrial Bank on February 26, 1943, as documented by Receipt No. 73043.

Possession of the properties was delivered to the defendant spouses on November 25, 1942, by the provincial sheriff.

The redemption term, under normal circumstances, was set to expire on April 28, 1942—the one-year period from the date of the auction sale.

The plaintiff sought to repurchase the properties even after the expiration of the statutory redemption period, contending that the advent of the war (Japanese occupation) had suspended or extended this period.

The Japanese occupation created a period of confusion and difficulty; however, regular judicial proceedings in Pangasinan are noted to have resumed by May 1942.

Although the plaintiff claimed to have made efforts to repurchase as early as December 1942, his actions only amounted to requesting an extension without tendering the redemption price.

The plaintiff also argued that the auction sale price was grossly inadequate, but the stipulated sale documents did not expressly declare a reasonable market value.

Whether the Japanese occupation and ensuing wartime conditions suspended or extended the statutory redemption period beyond the one-year term.
Whether the plaintiff’s delayed attempt to repurchase the properties after the expiration of the redemption period could be justified on the grounds of equitable relief.
Whether the inadequacy of the auction sale price, as claimed by the plaintiff, was substantial enough to shock the conscience and warrant annulment of the sale.
Whether financial hardship caused by the war constitutes a valid excuse for missing the redemption period.
Whether the debt moratorium under Executive Order No. 32, which prohibited the enforcement of debts, could apply to the payment of redemption money and thereby affect the redemption period.