Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2


On October 4, 1982, respondent Lea Simeon obtained from petitioner Estanislao Bodiongan and his wife
a loan of P219,11739 secured by a mortgage on three (3) parcels of land with a four-storey hotel building
and personal properties located at Gango, Ozamiz City.

Upon default of the private respondent, petitioner instituted an action for collection of sum of money or
foreclosure mortgage with the RTC. Judgment was rendered in favor of the petitioner, and ordering
respondent to pay, and in case of non-payment to foreclose the mortgage.

Again, private respondent failed to pay the judgment debt; hence, the mortgaged properties were
foreclosed and sold on execution. At the auction sale, petitioner submitted to the sheriff a written bid
of P309,000.00. Thereafter, the properties were awarded to petitioner as sole bidder and a certificate of
sale was issued in his name and registered with the Register of Deeds of Ozamiz City.

Petitioner then took possession of the properties after filing, per order of the trial court, a guaranty bond of
P350,000.00 to answer for any damage thereon during the redemption period.

On January 8, 1988, private respondent offered to redeem her properties and tendered to the Provincial
Sheriff a check in the amount of P337,580.00. This amount was based on a tentative computation by the
sheriff. 3 The check was received by petitioner on the same day after which the sheriff issued a certificate
of redemption to private respondent also on the same day. However, petitioner filed for an annulment of
redemption and confirmation of the foreclosure sale on the ground of insufficiency of the redemption price.

Issue: WON the redemption price, under the Revised Rules of Court (for the mortgaged properties should be
P351,080.00 since private respondent actually tendered P337,580.00 which is short by P13,500.00, this price)
was inadequate thereby rendering redemption ineffectual.
Ruling: YES in the strict language of the law. However, in this case, the court liberally interpreted
the rule on the right of redemption (in favor of the original owner .)
In order to effect a redemption, the judgment debtor must pay the purchaser the redemption price
composed of the following: (1) the price which the purchaser paid for the property; (2) interest of 1% per month
on the purchase price; (3) the amount of any assessments or taxes which the purchaser may have paid on the
property after the purchase; and (4) interest of 1% per month on such assessments and taxes. The
redemption price must be for the full amount, otherwise the offer to redeem will be ineffectual. 10 And if
the tender is for less than the entire amount, the purchaser may justly refuse acceptance thereof.
However, in the case of Castillo v. Nagtalon, it provides that in the redemption of property sold at an
extrajudicial foreclosure sale, the amount payable is no longer the judgment debt but the purchase
price at the auction sale. In other words, the attorney's fees awarded by the trial court should not have been
added to the redemption price because the amount payable is no longer the judgment debt, but that which is
stated in Section 30 of Rule 39 (Revised Rules of Court). The redemption price for the mortgaged
properties in this case should therefore be P346,080.00, not P351,080.00.
It must be remembered that the policy of the law is to aid rather than defeat the right of redemption.

Thus, inasmuch as the tender of the redemption price (P337,580.00) based on the computation
of the sheriff was timely and in good faith, and the deficiency (P8,500.00) in said price
(P346,080.00) is not substantial, the Supreme Court gave the debtor-mortgagor, in the interest
of justice, 15 days from the time the decision became final, to complete the redemption as
provided in Section 26, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. (Cited Cases: Castillo v. Nagtalon, 4 SCRA 48, 54

[1962]; see also Rosario v. Tayug Rural Bank, Inc., 22 SCRA 1220 [1968]; De los Reyes v. Intermediate Appellate Court,
176 SCRA 394, 403 [1989]).