Facts:
Julio Javellana, plaintiff and appellant, recovered in 1915 in the
Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo a judgment for P5,710.50 with interest against
Maximino Mirasol and
Eugenio Kilayco, and an execution was levied upon certain properties of Maximino. Those properties were sold at public auction on July 6, 1915, and were purchased by
Julio Javellana for P5,920. Before the one-year statutory period for redemption expired, on July 3, 1916, Alejandro Mirasol, acting for his brother
Luis Mirasol, presented to
Geronimo Nunez, deputy sheriff, a check drawn on the
Bank of the Philippine Islands payable to bearer for P6,604.74 as a deposit to redeem under
section 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and exhibited a document dated April 4, 1916, by which the bank had assigned to
Luis Mirasol two judgments against
Maximino Mirasol (consideration therein stated as P6,150).
Geronimo Nunez accepted the check and delivered a receipt acknowledging P6,604.74 as a redemption deposit, but the check was not immediately presented for payment; it was delivered to Governor Amando Avancena, retained during his term, later turned over to his successor Gregorio Yulo, and was presented to the bank and paid on December 13, 1916. Pursuant to the redemption,
Geronimo Nunez executed on March 9, 1918 a public document purporting to convey to
Luis Mirasol the right, title and interest formerly vested in
Maximino Mirasol. Thereafter
Julio Javellana filed in the Court of First Instance on April 11, 1918 a complaint attacking the redemption as irregular, unauthorized and simulated, praying that the March 9, 1918 instrument be declared fraudulent and cancelled and that the sheriff issue to him a definitive deed under
section 466 of the Code of Civil Procedure; after answer the trial judge, L. M. Southworth, held on October 7, 1918 that the redemption was in good faith and lawful, declared
Luis Mirasol owner of the properties, and dismissed the complaint, from which judgment
Julio Javellana appealed to the Supreme Court, which rendered its decision on February 5, 1920.
Issues:
Was the deposit made on July 3, 1916 in fact an unconditional and good-faith redemption or was it a collusive, colorable deposit intended to be returned and thus fraudulent? Did the use of a check rather than cash render the redemption invalid? Was the tender to the officer who conducted the sale instead of directly to the purchaser fatal to the redemption? Did the failure to produce the documents specified in
section 467 of the Code of Civil Procedure invalidate the redemption? May an ordinary judgment creditor or assignee of such a judgment redeem property sold under execution under
section 464 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: