Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24791)
Facts:
Apolonia Miranda, Remedios Guanzon, Socorro Guanzon, Leopoldo Guanzon, Filotea Guanzon, Paulina Guanzon, and Liduvina Guanzon v. Arsenio Reyes, G.R. No. L-24791. August 29, 1969, the Supreme Court En Banc, Makalintal, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiffs were the registered owners of an urban parcel in Malate, Manila (TCT No. 45643). In 1957 they mortgaged the property to the Republic Bank for P12,000.00. For nonpayment the mortgage was foreclosed extrajudicially under Act No. 3135, and at the sheriff's public sale on September 30, 1963 the highest bidder was Arsenio Reyes (defendant-appellant) at P16,415.00; a certificate of sale was issued to him the same day.
Before the one-year statutory redemption period expired, the plaintiffs, through counsel, wrote on September 19, 1964 offering to redeem by tendering P16,415.00 "with one (1) percent interest per month plus any tax and assessments which may be shown by you to have been paid, also with the same rate of interest," and warning that they would consign the amount in court if the offer were refused or unanswered within two days. The defendant received that letter on September 24, 1964 and replied the same day: "Your client is welcomed (sic) to effect the repurchase stated in your letter." Plaintiffs received the reply on September 29, 1964.
On September 28, 1964 — before the plaintiffs received the defendant's reply but within the redemption year — they filed Civil Case No. 58465 in the Court of First Instance of Manila and deposited P18,373.86 in court (stated to represent principal and interest for 11 months and 28 days), praying that the defendant be ordered to accept the deposit as full satisfaction of the redemption price and that the plaintiffs be released from obligations connected with the foreclosure.
The defendant answered and counterclaimed, seeking declaration of absolute ownership and monthly rental, plus damages and attorneys' fees. On stipulated facts the trial court ruled for the plaintiffs but ordered them to add P198.87 for sheriff's fees, assessments and documentary stamps, with 1% monthly interest from disbursement. The defendant appealed to this Court, raising two issues: (1) whether consignation was proper when the tender was not refused but was in fact accepted by the defendant on the same day he received the tender; and (2) whether the amount deposited was suf...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the plaintiffs' consignation in court proper and effective when the defendant did not unjustly refuse the tender but sent a letter of acceptance on the same day he received the plaintiffs' tender?
- Was the amount deposited in the clerk of court a sufficient and proper redemption price — in particular, should it have included taxes, assessments (with interest) and sheriff's fees — under Articl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)