Case Digest (G.R. No. 78556)
Facts:
The case at hand involves the petitioners Alfaro Fortunado, Edith Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado, and Ramon A. Gonzales who filed a petition against several respondents, including the Court of Appeals, Basilisa Campano (the City Sheriff of Iligan City), the Register of Deeds of Iligan City, Angel L. Bautista, and the National Steel Corporation (NSC). The relevant events unfolded following a judgment made by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City on April 21, 1981, in Civil Case No. Q-22367, where the court ordered the defendant, Angel Bautista, to pay damages to Alfaro Fortunado. Pursuant to this judgment, Sheriff Basilisa Campano levied two parcels of land (covered by Transfer Certificates of Title No. T-7625 and T-14133) registered in Bautista’s name in Iligan City. Although NSC had purchased TCT No. T-14133 on August 17, 1983, this transfer had not yet been recorded. After public bidding on April 23, 1984, the properties were sold to the petitioners, who were the sole bidders,
Case Digest (G.R. No. 78556)
Facts:
- Background and Court Proceedings
- On April 21, 1981, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City rendered judgment in Civil Case No. Q-22367 (Alfaro Fortunado vs. Angel Bautista), ordering the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff.
- Pursuant to the judgment, respondent Basilisa Campano, City Sheriff of Iligan City, levied two parcels of land—one covered by TCT No. T-7625 and another by TCT No. T-14133—registered in the name of Angel Bautista.
- Notably, the lot covered by TCT No. T-14133 had already been purchased by the National Steel Corporation (NSC) as of August 17, 1983, although it had not been registered in its name.
- Auction Sale and Registration
- Following due notice, the two lots were sold at a public auction on April 23, 1984, with the petitioners emerging as the only bidders.
- The petitioners were issued a certificate of sale, which was duly registered on April 25, 1984.
- Redemption Attempts and Conflicting Actions
- NSC, seeking to exercise its right of redemption, gave notice on January 10, 1985, regarding their intention to redeem the lot covered by TCT No. T-14133.
- The sheriff suggested that since both lots were sold for a lump sum of P267,013.00, NSC should redeem both parcels together.
- On February 11, 1985, NSC filed an urgent motion to redeem both lots, which faced opposition from the petitioners on the ground that NSC lacked the requisite personality to intervene.
- With the redemption period approaching expiration on April 18, 1985, NSC issued PNB Check No. 313551 in the amount of P296,384.43 to the sheriff on March 20, 1985, as the redemption price for TCT No. T-14133. The sheriff acknowledged receipt of the check on the same day.
- Redemption by Angel Bautista and Subsequent Developments
- On March 21, 1985, Angel Bautista sent the sheriff a letter indicating NSC’s conformity to redeem the other lot (TCT No. T-7625) using the same check amount, but with a reservation stating that:
- The redemption was executed solely for the purpose of effecting the issuance of a certificate of redemption.
- The act was not to be construed as an acknowledgment of the validity of the writ of execution and sale, nor as a waiver of any legal rights or remedies.
- The sheriff later acknowledged receipt of the check as redemption money for both parcels on March 21, 1985, and subsequently issued a certificate of redemption in favor of NSC and Bautista on March 22, 1985.
- On March 25, 1985, Bautista communicated to the sheriff that he would no longer effect the redemption on the ground that the auction sale was null and void.
- Further complications arose when, in an Urgent Motion dated March 27, 1985, Bautista requested that the redemption money (P296,384.43) be deposited with the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City pending final resolution of issues regarding the validity of the auction sale.
- The petitioners later requested, on April 25, 1985, that the sheriff issue a final deed of sale over the two lots, contending that no valid redemption had been effected within the twelve-month period from the registration of the sale. When this request was denied, the petitioners filed a petition for mandamus.
- Subsequent Court Decisions and Movements
- On November 10, 1986, the respondent court denied the writ of mandamus but granted an injunction restraining the registration of the certificate of redemption in favor of NSC and Bautista, basing its decision on settled jurisprudence regarding the nature of the right of redemption.
- The petitioners subsequently moved for partial reconsideration on November 22, 1986, while NSC filed a Manifestation on March 18, 1987, indicating that the certificate of redemption had already been registered and a new transfer certificate of title (TCT No. T-27154) issued to NSC on September 12, 1985.
- On May 8, 1987, the respondent court denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, leading to the present appeal by certiorari.
Issues:
- Validity of Redemption
- Whether the redemption executed by the private respondents (NSC and Angel Bautista) was validly effected under the prevailing rules and jurisprudence.
- If the tender of redemption price by means of a check, which is not legal tender, is sufficient and valid under the law.
- Applicability of Article 1249 of the Civil Code
- Whether Article 1249, which mandates payment of debts in the stipulated or legal tender currency, is applicable in the context of the right of redemption.
- Whether redemption, being a privilege and alternative relief rather than an obligation, is exempt from the application of Article 1249.
- Impact of Conditional Tender and Reservation
- Whether the conditional nature of Bautista’s tender—evidenced by the reservation in his letter—affects the validity and unconditionality of the redemption.
- Whether the subsequent withdrawal and conflicting motions by Bautista undermine or nullify his exercise of the right of redemption.
- Jurisprudential Conflict and the Role of Check as Payment
- Whether the cases cited by the petitioners (e.g., Belisario, Villanueva, Legarda) effectively overrule the established precedent in Javellana v. Mirasol regarding redemption by check.
- Whether the use of a check in lieu of direct legal tender, once accepted by the officer, should be deemed valid in a redemption transaction.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)