Case Digest (G.R. No. 8147)
Facts:
G. Urrutia & Co. v. Amalia Moreno and Leon Reyes, G.R. No. 8147. October 26, 1914, the Supreme Court En Banc, Moreland, J., writing for the Court. The appeal arises from a stipulation of facts agreed by the parties and the judgment of the trial court that is here reviewed on appeal.
The stipulation shows that Mendezona & Co., a partnership in liquidation, obtained judgment in the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Cause No. 3326 against Mariano Moreno as principal and against Amalia Moreno, Camilo Moreno, and Rafael Serra as sureties for P18,154.24 plus interest. On July 2, 1908, Mendezona & Co. sold and transferred that judgment to G. Urrutia & Co. Under an execution issued on that judgment, on July 1, 1908 the sheriff sold one house and several parcels of land belonging to Mariano Moreno to Mendezona & Co., and other lands (including lands of Amalia Moreno) were also sold under the same execution for stated sums.
A later execution issued in Civil Cause No. 4905 in favor of G. Urrutia & Co. (judgment for P27,185.90 with interest) was presented to the registrar of real estate titles for Ambos Camarines on July 24, 1908, and preventive annotations were entered against the affected land entries. Subsequently, Amalia Moreno, described in the stipulation as a surety for Mariano Moreno and as subrogated to the rights of Mendezona & Co. and its successors, tendered to Sheriff Leon Reyes the sums required to redeem the parcels of Mariano Moreno (including interest) and received from the sheriff documents purporting to acknowledge redemption within the legal period. The sheriff retained the money.
G. Urrutia & Co., both on its own behalf and as successor in interest to Mendezona & Co., refused to accept the tendered redemption sums and denied that Amalia Moreno had any right to redeem or to retain possession or to be subrogated to Mendezona’s rights. The trial court held that Amalia Moreno was entitled to redeem the premises sold under the judgment. G. Urrutia & Co. appealed from that judgment to the Supreme Court.
The agreed facts left open whether the judgment had been fully satisfied by the sales; the trial court nevert...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May a surety who has paid (or contributed to the payment of) a judgment obtained jointly against the principal and the surety redeem real estate belonging to the principal which was sold under execution on that judgment?
- If the surety is subrogated to the creditor’s rights upon payment, does that subrogation make the surety a “redemptioner” within the meaning of Section 464 of the Code of Civil Procedure (i.e., a creditor holding a lien subsequent to the judgm...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)