G.R. No. 255212 - Villarete vs. Alta Vista Golf and Country Club, Inc.

The case involves petitioners Emma C. Villarete, Officer-in-Charge, City Treasurer of Cebu, and the City of Cebu, versus respondent Alta Vista Golf and Country Club, Inc.
The dispute arose from the sale of a tax delinquent property (Lot No. 4 PSU-192448) originally registered in the name of the heirs of Benigno Sumagang.
The property was sold at an auction held on May 27, 2011, following a published “Notice of Sale of Tax Delinquent Properties” on May 13, 2011.
Alta Vista participated in that auction, secured the winning bid of PhP 295,994.89, and obtained the corresponding official receipt and Certification of Sale.
Subsequent to the sale, the heirs of Benigno Sumagang attempted to exercise their right of redemption as provided by law.

On May 22, 2012, Anita Sumagang, one of the heirs, communicated her intent to redeem the property through a letter addressed to the City Treasurer.
On May 23, 2012, the City Treasurer, through her representative, instructed that redemption must be completed on or before May 28, 2012 and required proof of Anita’s identity as an heir.
On May 28, 2012, Anita visited the Office of the City Treasurer with sufficient cash but her tender was rejected because she did not initially present the required identification documents.
On May 30, 2012, Anita resubmitted her payment along with the necessary proof of her legal personality, but this was two days after the statutory expiration of the redemption period.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Cebu City, granted the petition for mandamus and damages filed by respondent Alta Vista, ordering:

The issuance of the final deed of conveyance to respondent.
The cancellation of the Certificate of Redemption issued in favor of the heirs of Benigno Sumagang.

The RTC’s decision was based on the determination that, under Section 261 of RA 7160 and by applying Article 13 of the New Civil Code, the heirs’ right to redeem expired on May 26, 2012.
The RTC also ruled that, having lost their right of redemption, respondent’s acquisition of ownership was absolute, rendering the issuances of final deed a ministerial act.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in its Dec. 13, 2019 Decision and September 23, 2020 Resolution, noting:

The redemption period, computed under the Administrative Code of 1987 (twelve calendar months), ended on May 28, 2012.
The internal procedure requiring proper identification was a prudent measure.
Respondent’s right as the purchaser, having acquired absolute ownership due to the lapse in the redemption period, made the issuance of the deed a mere ministerial act.

Whether mandamus proceedings were proper to strip the heirs of their rights despite their non-impleadment.
Whether the CA misapplied Section 261 of RA 7160 by requiring the redemption to be perfected in a single transaction on the day of redemption.
Whether the CA erred in not upholding a more liberal policy on the computation and application of the redemption period.

The facts indicate that despite the apparent timeliness of Anita Sumagang’s intention (as evidenced by her early letter on May 22, 2012), procedural non-compliance on May 28, 2012 led to her tender being rejected.
Although she subsequently complied on May 30, 2012 by presenting the necessary documents and cash, this payment was rendered untimely in view of the prescribed statutory period.
The evidence also shows that the petitioner’s actions—especially the strict requirement for documentary proof—were based on existing administrative protocols.
The conflicting positions underscore a tension between a strict reading of the law (emphasizing the literal expiration of the redemption period) versus a more liberal, equitable approach favoring substantial compliance.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that mandamus proceedings are proper to strip the heirs of their real property rights even though the heirs were not impleaded in the petition.
Whether the CA’s interpretation of Section 261 of RA 7160 was too restrictive by mandating that the exercise of the right to redeem be completed and perfected by a single act on the designated day, without recognizing substantial compliance.
Whether the CA erred in refusing to adopt a liberal interpretation of the redemption rules—thus, denying petitioners’ contention that a minor delay (two days) should not nullify the redemption, given the circumstances of internal procedural verification.