G.R. No. L-29748 - Philippine National Bank vs. Pineda

The plaintiff, E. A. Enage, sought to exercise a right of redemption over certain parcels of land that had been sold under execution upon a judgment against Jacinta Escano.
The land in question was sold at a sheriff’s sale following a judgment obtained by the defendant “Vda. e Hijos de F. Escano,” a partnership that recovered a judgment against Jacinta Escano in the Court of First Instance of Leyte.

Four of the parcels initially bought by the judgment creditor were later sold to defendants Tikiiig, Roa, and Santos;
The parcel bought by Tomas Oppus was transferred by him to defendants Galo and Perez.

On June 11, 1915, Jacinta Escano transferred and assigned her right to redeem the real estate to the plaintiff for valuable consideration.
On September 11, 1915, the plaintiff notified the purchasers at the execution sale and their assigns, as well as the sheriff, of his newly acquired right to redeem the property.
The plaintiff offered to pay each purchaser the full amount for which their respective parcels had been bid, plus interest and additional charges.

The purchasers, however, refused to consent to the redemption even after the full tender was made in writing.
The plaintiff then demanded that the sheriff execute a certificate of redemption and tendered payment for the benefit of the purchasers and their assigns, which was refused by the sheriff, who directed the plaintiff to approach the successful bidders instead.
On October 16, 1915, the plaintiff deposited with the clerk of the Court of the First Instance an amount estimated as the net difference between the revenue accrued by the possessors and the amounts at which the properties were bid.
After providing written notice of this deposit to all the purchasers and assignees (none of whom responded favorably), the plaintiff filed the present action on October 22, 1915 to compel the defendants to permit his redemption.

That the plaintiff had not tendered the full amount necessary for redemption either to them or to the sheriff;
That the right of redemption had been previously bought in at another execution sale (involving the defendant Tomas Oppus and subsequent transferees), thereby invalidating the assignment; and
That the assignment from Jacinta Escano was simulated and fictitious.

At trial, evidence predominantly concerned the rents and profits collected by the defendants from the land during their possession.
The trial judge dismissed the action on April 23, 1917, holding that the plaintiff had failed to comply with Section 469 of the Code of Civil Procedure by not demanding a statement of account of the rents and profits from the defendants prior to filing suit.

On appeal, the Supreme Court noted the trial judge’s failure to comply with Section 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure by not making special findings regarding every issue of fact from the pleadings.
The appellate court examined the evidence independently, finding sufficient proof that the plaintiff had indeed tendered the full amount and that the refusal by the purchasers was both absolute and based on extraneous grounds.
The evidence established that the plaintiff’s tender, made in writing to both the defendants and the sheriff, was proper and that the procedural omission should not bar his substantial right to redeem.

Whether the plaintiff, having tendered the full amount due for the redemption (including the purchase price, interest, and legal costs), complied with the legal requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure to exercise his right of redemption.
Whether the deficiencies pointed out by the trial court—specifically, the failure to demand and obtain a statement of account of the rents and profits from the defendants—prevent the plaintiff’s right of redemption.
Whether the defendants’ special defenses, including the claim of a prior acquisition of the redemption right and the assertion that the assignment was simulated, are sustainable in light of the evidence.
Whether it is procedurally acceptable to join the remedy for enforcing the right of redemption with an action for an accounting of the rents and profits, thus avoiding the multiplicity of suits.
Whether the failure of the trial judge to render special findings, as mandated by Section 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure, constitutes reversible error affecting the outcome of the case.