G.R. No. 221075 - Malaki vs. People

On August 5, 1979, petitioner Maria V. de Casimiro caused the constitution of two real estate mortgages on a parcel of land consisting of 5,109 square meters, registered under TCT No. 3573 (38903) in her name.
The mortgages were executed as security for two separate loans, each amounting to P75,000.00, obtained by her sons Eduardo V. Casimiro and Alfonso V. Casimiro from the Traders Royal Bank.
Upon default by the borrowers, the mortgages were foreclosed extrajudicially.
The property was sold at a public auction where the Traders Royal Bank emerged as the highest bidder.
Two certificates of sale, both dated August 14, 1979, were issued by the Deputy Sheriff of Pasig, later inscribed in the books of the Register of Deeds on September 14, 1979, and January 11, 1980 respectively.
The redemption period applicable to the certificate of sale inscribed on January 11, 1980, was set to expire on January 11, 1981.

Private respondent Eliseo Pambid filed a complaint for Specific Performance and/or Compliance in Civil Case No. C-7669 against Eduardo V. Casimiro and Hijos de P. Casimiro, Inc.
On October 1, 1979, a judgment by default was rendered in favor of Pambid which, among other orders, imposed monetary awards such as moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
An Alias Writ of Execution issued on December 4, 1980, authorized the levy on all rights, titles, and interests of the defendants, specifically targeting their rights as redemptioners in the foreclosed property.
On January 6, 1981, a Certificate of Sale was issued by the respondent Deputy Sheriff, conveying to Pambid Eduardo Casimiro’s interest in the subject property.
Pambid, having confirmed with the bank that Eduardo Casimiro would not exercise his right to redeem, subsequently paid the redemption price to the Traders Royal Bank on January 8, 1981.

On September 7, 1981, nearly nine months after the expiration of the redemption period, petitioner Maria V. de Casimiro initiated Civil Case No. C-9523 for reconveyance against Pambid, the ex-oficio Sheriff Rodrigo N. Saure, and the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City.
The petitioner alleged that the levy on the right of redemption of the land covered by TCT No. 3573 (383903) was illegal because she claimed to be the true owner and contended that she was not a party to Civil Case No. C-7669.
She also challenged the validity of the waiver and forfeiture of the right of redemption by Eduardo V. Casimiro, arguing that she never authorized such a waiver, as the right allegedly belonged to her as the owner.

The petitioner’s primary contention was that the waiver by Eduardo V. Casimiro of the right to redeem the property was invalid on the ground that she did not authorize such a waiver.
She argued that as the property owner, the right of redemption belonged to her and she could have redeemed the property by tendering the redemption money before the redemption period expired.
The contention was further bolstered by the fact that her complaint seeking reconveyance was filed after the statutory redemption period had lapsed and without evidence of an effort on her part to redeem the property.

Section 6 of Article 3135 of the governing law was highlighted, which provides that in cases of an extrajudicial sale, the debtor—not the owner of the mortgaged property—holds the right to redeem.
This provision underscores that the right of redemption is vested exclusively in the debtor or his successors, thereby limiting any claim by the mortgagor (in this case, the petitioner) to redeem the property.
The Court emphasized that the absence of a tender of the redemption price by the petitioner rendered her reconveyance suit and subsequent assertions untenable.

Whether the proper remedy for the petitioner was to file an appeal rather than a petition for certiorari in challenging the decision dismissing her complaint for reconveyance.
The question of whether the petitioner’s procedural choice contributed to the dismissal of her reconveyance claim.

Whether the redemption exercise by private respondent Eliseo Pambid was lawful, given that Eduardo V. Casimiro had waived his right to redeem.
The issue revolves around if the waiver and forfeiture of redemption rights by Eduardo, as the debtor, is conclusive and immune from contestation by the petitioner.

Whether the petitioner had any valid opportunity to redeem the property by tendering the redemption money within the statutory period.
The implications of the expiration of the redemption period and the lack of any evidence that the petitioner attempted to redeem the property.