Case Digest (G.R. No. L-11732)
Facts:
Florencio Gonzalez Diez v. Vicente Delgado and T. B. Imperial, G.R. No. 11732, January 12, 1918, the Supreme Court En Banc, Torres, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff Florencio Gonzalez Diez (redemptioner and mortgage creditor) sued to redeem four urban lots formerly belonging to Pedro Bonnevie that had been sold at public auction and adjudicated to Vicente Delgado (purchaser and judgment creditor). The provincial sheriff T. B. Imperial executed the sale of ten lots on February 3, 1913; the four lots at issue brought P465 in the aggregate. Tenants of the judgment debtor later paid rents for two of those lots, producing P310 which the sheriff delivered to Delgado.Background: Delgado had obtained judgment against Bonnevie on August 30, 1910 (affirmed by this Court in Delgado v. Bonnevie). Gonzalez Diez acquired a mortgage credit against Bonnevie (registered February 7, 1910), sued on it (No. 1539), and obtained judgment on July 22, 1913. After a judicial sale of mortgaged property in October 1913 and a subsequent writ, Gonzalez Diez acquired at auction (December 17, 1913) the right of redemption in the four lots (P2,000 total), then demanded resales from Delgado; Delgado refused, claiming a lien of P1,623.71. Gonzalez Diez deposited sums with the clerk and brought the present redemption suit (complaint filed January 23, 1914). Justice A. C. Carson issued a preliminary injunction (Jan. 24, 1914) restraining the sheriff from issuing final title to Delgado.
An interpleader/intervention was filed by Walter E. Olsen, who had paid a prior judgment (as surety) and claimed a prior attachment based on a March 22, 1912 recorded presentation of an execution notice; Olsen asserted preference over Gonzalez Diez and Delgado. The Court of First Instance of Camarines, on June 10, 1915, held Gonzalez Diez entitled to redeem the four lots upon payment to Delgado of P465 with 1% per month interest (Feb. 3, 1913 to Jan. 2, 1914), but allowed deduction of P310 (rents collected). The trial court dismissed Olsen’s intervention (reserving other r...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is a judgment debtor's statutory right of redemption subject to attachment and sale at execution by a subsequent judgment creditor?
- If a redemption is effected under the Code, what sum must a redemptioner pay the purchaser to repurchase the property?
- Was the prior attachment alleged by intervener Walter E. Olsen (and its registry presentation) effective to invalidate the sale and/or give Olsen a prefer...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)