Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

VOL.

479,JANUARY24,2006
571
Parayvs.Rodriguez

G.R.No.132287.January24,2006.*
SPOUSES BONIFACIO and FAUSTINA PARAY, and VIDAL
ESPELETA, petitioners, vs. DRA. ABDULIA C. RODRIGUEZ,
MIGUELAR.JARIOLassistedbyherhusbandANTOLINJARIOL,SR.,
LEONORA NOLASCO assisted by her husband FELICIANO
NOLASCO, DOLORES SOBERANO assisted by her husband JOSE
SOBERANO,JR.,JULIAR.GENEROSO,TERESITAR.NATIVIDAD
and GENOVEVA R. SORONIO assisted by her husband ALFONSO
SORONIO,respondents.
CivilLaw;Pledge;Foreclosure;UndertheCivilCode,theforeclosureofa
pledgeoccursextrajudiciallywithoutinterventionbythecourts.Preliminarily,it
mustbeclarifiedthatthesubjectsaleofpledgedshareswasanextrajudicialsale,
specificallyanotarialsale,asdistinguishedfromajudicialsaleastypifiedbyan
execution sale. Under the Civil Code, the foreclosure of a pledge occurs
extrajudicially,withoutinterventionbythecourts.Allthecreditorneedsto
_______________
*THIRDDIVISION.

572

572
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Parayvs.Rodriguez

do,ifthecredithasnotbeensatisfiedinduetime,istoproceedbeforeaNotary
Publictothesaleofthethingpledged.
Same;Same;Same;Redemption;Therightofredemptionasaffirmedunder
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court applies only to execution sales, more precisely
executionsalesofrealproperty.TherightofredemptionasaffirmedunderRule39
oftheRulesofCourtappliesonlytoexecutionsales,morepreciselyexecutionsales
ofrealproperty.
Same;Same;Same;Same;Thereisnolawinourstatutebookswhichveststhe
right of redemption over personal property.The right of redemption over
mortgaged real property sold extrajudicially is established by Act No. 3135, as
amended.Thesaidlawdoesnotextendthesamebenefittopersonalproperty.Infact,

thereisnolawinourstatutebookswhichveststherightofredemptionoverpersonal
property.ActNo.1508,ortheChattelMortgageLaw,ostensiblycouldhaveserved
asthevehicleforanylegislativeintenttobestowarightofredemptionoverpersonal
property, since that law governs the extrajudicial sale of mortgaged personal
property,butthestatuteisdefinitelysilentonthepoint.AndSection39ofthe1997
RulesofCivilProcedure,extensivelyrelieduponbytheCourtofAppeals,starkly
uttersthattherightofredemptionappliestorealproperties,notpersonalproperties,
soldonexecution.
Same;Same;Same;NoprovisionintheRulesofCourtorinanylawrequires
thatpledgedpropertiessoldatauctionbesoldseparately.TheCourtofAppeals
alsofoundfaultwiththeapparentsaleinbulkofthepledgedshares,notwithstanding
thefactthattheseshareswereownedbyseveralpeople,onthepremisethepledgors
wouldbedeniedtheopportunitytoknowexactlyhowmuchtheywouldneedto
shouldertoexercisetherighttoredemption.Thisconcernisobviouslyrendereda
nonissuebythefactthattherecanbenorighttoredemptioninthefirstplace.Rule
39oftheRulesofCourtdoesprovideforinstanceswhenpropertiesforeclosedatthe
sametimemustbesoldseparately,suchasinthecaseoflotsalesforrealproperty
underSection19.However,theseinstancesagainpertaintoexecutionsalesandnot
extrajudicialsales.NoprovisionintheRulesofCourtorinanylawrequiresthat
pledgedpropertiessoldatauctionbesoldseparately.
VOL.479,JANUARY24,2006

573
573

Parayvs.Rodriguez

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
DioresLawOfficeforpetitioners.
FloridoandAssociatesforrespondentsHeirsofDra.A.Rodriguez.
GregorioB.EscasinasforrespondentD.Soberano.
MarioOrtizforrespondentsSps.Jariol.
TINGA,J.:
TheassaileddecisionoftheCourtofAppealstookoffonthepremisethat
pledged shares of stock auctioned off in a notarial sale could still be
redeemedbytheirowners.Thisnotioniswrong,andwethusreverse.
Thefacts,asculledfromtherecord,follow.

Respondentsweretheowners,intheirrespectivepersonalcapacities,of
sharesofstockinacorporationknownastheQuirinoLeonorRodriguez
RealtyInc.1Sometimeduringtheyears1979to1980,respondentssecured
bywayofpledgeofsomeoftheirsharesofstocktopetitionersBonifacio
andFaustinaParay(Parays)thepaymentofcertainloanobligations.The
sharespledgedarelistedbelow:

MiguelRodriguezJariol....

1,000sharescoveredbyStockCertificatesNo.011,060,061&062;
AbduliaC.Rodriguez........
300sharescoveredbyStockCertificatesNo.023&093;
LeonoraR.Nolasco............
407sharescoveredbyStockCertificatesNo.091&092;
GenovevaSoronio..............
699sharescoveredbyStockCertificatesNo.025,059&099;
_______________
1NowknownasQuinorFinancingCorporation.SeeRollo,p.5.

574

574
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Parayvs.Rodriguez

DoloresR.Soberano..........

699sharescoveredbyStockCertificatesNo.021,053,022&097;
JuliaGeneroso...................
1,100sharescoveredbyStockCertificatesNo.085,051,086&084;
TeresitaNatividad............
440sharescoveredbyStockCertificatesNos.054&0552

When the Parays attempted to foreclose the pledges on account of


respondentsfailuretopaytheirloans,respondentsfiledcomplaintswith
theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofCebuCity.Theactions,whichwere
consolidated and tried before RTC Branch 14, Cebu City, sought the
declarationofnullityofthepledgeagreements,amongothers.However
theRTC,initsdecision3dated14October1988,dismissedthecomplaint
andgaveduecoursetotheforeclosureandsaleatpublicauctionofthe
variouspledgessubjectofthesetwocases. 4Thisdecisionattainedfinality
afteritwasaffirmedbytheCourtofAppealsandtheSupremeCourt.The
EntryofJudgmentwasissuedon14August1991.

Respondents then received Notices of Sale which indicated that the


pledgedsharesweretobesoldatpublicauctionon4November1991.
However,beforethescheduleddateofauction,allofrespondentscaused
theconsignationwiththeRTCClerkofCourtofvariousamounts.Itwas
claimedthatrespondentshadattemptedtotenderthesepaymentstothe
Parays,buthadbeenrebuffed.Thedepositedamountswereasfollows:
AbduliaC.Rodriguez...............
P120,066.66

......
14Oct.1991
LeonoraR.Nolasco...................
277,381.82
......
14Oct.1991
GenovevaR.Soronio................
425,353.50
......
14Oct.1991
...................................................
38,385.44
......
14Oct.1991
_______________
2Rollo,p.18.
3PennedbythenJudge(nowCourtofAppealsAssociateJustice)R.Dacudao.
4Rollo,p.36.

VOL.479,JANUARY24,2006

575
575

JuliaR.Generoso.....................
638,385.00

Parayvs.Rodriguez
......

25Oct.1991
TeresitaR.Natividad...............
264,375.00
......
11Nov.1991
DoloresR.Soberano.................
12,031.61
......
25Oct.1991


520,216.39
......
11Nov.1991
MiguelaJariol..........................
490,000.00
......
18Oct.1991

88,000.00
......
18Oct.19915

Notwithstanding the consignations, the public auction took place as


scheduled,withpetitionerVidalEspeletasuccessfullybiddingtheamount
of P6,200,000.00 for all of the pledged shares. None of respondents
participatedorappearedattheauctionof4November1991.
Respondentsinsteadfiledon13November1991acomplaintseeking
thedeclarationofnullityoftheconcludedpublicauction.Thecomplaint,
docketedasCivilCaseNo.CEB10926,wasassignedtoBranch16ofthe
Cebu City RTC. Respondents argued that their tender of payment and
subsequentconsignationsservedtoextinguishtheirloanobligationsand
dischargedthepledgecontracts.Petitionerscounteredthattheauctionsale
wasconductedpursuanttothefinalandexecutoryjudgmentinCivilCases
Nos. R20120 and 20131, and that the tender of payment and
consignationsweremadelongaftertheirobligationshadfallendue.
The Cebu City RTC dismissed the complaint, expressing agreement
withthepositionoftheParays.6Itheld,amongothersthatrespondentshad
failed to tender or consign payments within a reasonable period after
defaultandthattheproperremedyofrespondentswastohaveparticipated
inthe
_______________
5TheCourtofAppealshadinitiallyruledthatMiguelaandAntoninJariolhadfailedto

consign payments. However, in a Resolution dated 4 May 2000, the appellate court
recognizedthattheJariolspouseshadindeedmadetheconsignedpaymentsnowreferenced.
SeeCARollo,pp.279280.
6 ThroughaDecisiondated18November1992,pennedbythenJudge(nowCourtof

AppealsJustice)G.Jacinto.
576

576
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Parayvs.Rodriguez

auctionsale.7TheCourtofAppealsEighthDivisionhoweverreversedthe
RTC on appeal, ruling that the consignations extinguished the loan
obligations and the subject pledge contracts; and the auction sale of 4
November1991asnullandvoid.8Mostcrucially,theappellatecourtchose
toupholdthesufficiencyoftheconsignationsowingtoanimputedpolicy
ofthelawthatfavoredredemptionandmandatedaliberalconstructionto
redemption laws. The attempts at payment by respondents were
characterizedasmadeintheexerciseoftherightofredemption.
The Court of Appeals likewise found fault with the auction sale,
holdingthattherewasaneedtoindividuallysellthevarioussharesof
stockastheyhadbelongedtodifferentpledgors.Thus,itwasobserved
thattheminutesoftheauctionsaleshouldhavespecifiedindetailthebids
submitted for each of the shares of the pledgors for the purpose of
knowingthepricetobepaidbythedifferentpledgorsuponredemptionof
theauctionedsalesofstock.
PetitionersnowarguebeforethisCourtthattheywereauthorizedto
refuseastheydidthetenderofpaymentsincetheywereundertakingthe
auctionsalepursuanttothefinalandexecutorydecisioninCivilCases
Nos. R20120 and 20131, which did not authorize the payment of the
principal obligation by respondents. They point out that the amounts
consigned could not extinguish the principal loan obligations of
respondentssincetheywerenotsufficienttocovertheinterestsdueonthe
debt.Theylikewisearguethattheessentialproceduralrequisitesforthe
auctionsalehadbeensatisfied.
Weruleinfavorofpetitioners.
_______________
7CARollo,pp.144147.
8 ThroughaDecisiondated29December1997,pennedbyAssociateJusticeJ.Rasul,

andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesE.LabitoriaandM.Buzon.
VOL.479,JANUARY24,2006

577
577

Parayvs.Rodriguez

Thefundamentalpremisefromwhichtheappellatecourtproceededwas
thattheconsignationsmadebyrespondentsshouldbeconstruedinlightof
therulesofredemption,asifrespondentswereexercisingsuchright.In
that perspective, the Court of Appeals made three crucial conclusions
favorabletorespondents:thattheiractofconsigningthepaymentswith
the RTC should be deemed done in the exercise of their right of
redemption;thatthebuyeratpublicauctiondoesnotipsofactobecomethe
ownerofthepledgedsharespendingthelapseoftheoneyearredemptive
period; andthat thecollectivesale ofthe sharesof stockbelongingto
severalindividualownerswithoutspecificationoftheapportionmentinthe
applicationsofpaymentdeprivestheindividualownersoftheopportunity
toknowofthepricetheywouldhavetopayforthepurposeofexercising
therightofredemption.
Theappellatecourtsdwellingontherightofredemptionisutterlyoff
tangent.Therightofredemptioninvolvespaymentsmadebydebtorsafter
theforeclosureoftheirproperties,andnotthosemadeorattemptedtobe
made,asinthiscase,beforetheforeclosuresale.Theproperfocusofthe
CourtofAppealsshouldhavebeenwhethertheconsignationsmadeby
respondentssufficientlyacquittedthemoftheirprincipalobligations.A
pledgecontractisanaccessorycontract,andisnecessarilydischargedif
theprincipalobligationisextinguished.
Nonetheless,theCourtisnowconfrontedwiththisrathernewfangled
theory, as propounded by the Court of Appeals, involving the right of
redemptionoverpledgedproperties.Wehavenohesitationinpronouncing
suchtheoryasdiscreditable.
Preliminarily,itmustbeclarifiedthatthesubjectsaleofpledgedshares
wasanextrajudicialsale,specificallyanotarialsale,asdistinguishedfrom
ajudicialsaleastypifiedbyanexecutionsale.UndertheCivilCode,the
foreclosureofapledgeoccursextrajudicially,withoutinterventionbythe
courts.Allthecreditorneedstodo,ifthecredithasnotbeen
578

578
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Parayvs.Rodriguez

satisfiedinduetime,istoproceedbeforeaNotaryPublictothesaleofthe
thingpledged.9

In this case, petitioners attempted as early as 1980 to proceed


extrajudicially with the sale of the pledged shares by public auction.
However,extrajudicialsalewasstayedwiththefilingofCivilCasesNo.
R20120and20131,whichsoughttoannulthepledgecontracts.Thefinal
andexecutoryjudgmentinthosecasesaffirmedthepledgecontractsand
disposedtheminthefollowingfashion:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrendereddismissingthe
complaintsatbar,and
1. (1)
DeclaringthevariouspledgescoveredinCivilCasesNos.R20120andR20131
validandeffective;and
2. (2)
Givingduecoursetotheforeclosureandsaleatpublicauctionofthevarious
pledgessubjectofthesetwocases.
Costsagainsttheplaintiffs.
SOORDERED.10

Thephrasegivingduecoursetotheforeclosureandsaleatpublicauction
ofthevariouspledgessubjectofthesetwocasesmaygiverisetothe
impressionthatsuchsaleisjudicialincharacter.Whilethedecisiondid
authorizethesalebypublicauction,suchdeclarationcouldnotdetract
from the fact that the sale so authorized is actually extrajudicial in
character. Note that the final judgment in said cases expressly did not
directthesalebypublicauctionofthepledgedshares,butinsteadupheld
therightoftheParaystoconductsuchsaleattheirownvolition.
Indeed,asaffirmedbytheCivilCode,11thedecisiontoproceedwiththe
salebypublicauctionremainsinthesolediscretionoftheParays,who
couldverywellchoosenottoholdthesalewithoutviolatingthefinal
judgmentsintheafore
_______________
9SeeCivilCode,Art.2112.
10Rollo,p.36.
11Art.2112.

VOL.479,JANUARY24,2006

579
579

Parayvs.Rodriguez

mentionedcivilcases.Ifthesaleweretrulyincompliancewithafinal
judgmentororder,theParayswouldhavenochoicebuttostagethesale
forthentheorderdirectingthesalearisesfromjudicialcompulsion.But
nothinginthedispositiveportiondirectedthesaleatpublicauctionasa
mandatoryrecourse,andproperlysosincethesaleofpledgedpropertyin
publicauctionis,byvirtueoftheCivilCode,extrajudicialincharacter.
Therightof redemptionas affirmedunder Rule 39ofthe Rulesof
Courtappliesonlytoexecutionsales,morepreciselyexecutionsalesof
realproperty.
The Court of Appeals expressly asserted the notion that pledged
property, necessarily personal in character, may be redeemed by the
creditorafterbeingsoldatpublicauction.Yet,asafundamentalmatter,
does the right of redemption exist over personal property? No law or
jurisprudence establishes or affirms such right. Indeed, no such right
exists.
Therighttoredeempropertysoldassecurityforthesatisfactionofan
unpaidobligationdoesnotexistpreternaturally.Neitherisitpredicatedon
proprietaryright,which,afterthesaleofpropertyonexecution,leavesthe
judgmentdebtorandvestsinthepurchaser.Instead,itisabarestatutory
privilegetobeexercisedonlybythepersonsnamedinthestatute.12
The right of redemption over mortgaged real property sold
extrajudiciallyisestablishedbyActNo.3135,asamended.Thesaidlaw
doesnotextendthesamebenefittopersonalproperty.Infact,thereisno
lawinourstatutebookswhichveststherightofredemptionoverpersonal
property.ActNo.1508,ortheChattelMortgageLaw,ostensiblycould
haveservedasthevehicleforanylegislativeintenttobestowa
_______________
12 See Magnov.Viola,61Phil.80,84(19341935);citing McQueenyvs.Toomey,36

Mont.,282;122Am.St.Rep.,358;92Pac.,56112Ann.Cas.,316;BankingCorporationof
Montanav.Hein,52Mont.,238;156Pac.,1085.SeealsoCastrov.IntermediateAppellate
Court,G.R.No.73859,29September1988,165SCRA654,661.
580

580
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Parayvs.Rodriguez

right of redemption over personal property, since that law governs the
extrajudicial sale of mortgaged personal property, but the statute is
definitelysilentonthepoint.AndSection39ofthe1997RulesofCivil
Procedure,extensivelyrelieduponbytheCourtofAppeals,starklyutters
that the right of redemption applies to real properties, not personal
properties,soldonexecution.
Tellingly, this Court, as early as 1927, rejected the proposition that
personalpropertymaybecoveredbytherightofredemption.InSibalv.
Valdez,13theCourtruledthatsugarcanecropsarepersonalproperty,and
thus,notsubjecttotherightofredemption. 14Nocountervailingstatutehas
beenenactedsincethenthatwouldaccordtherightofredemptionover
personalproperty,hencetheCourtcanaffirmthisdecadesoldrulingas
effectivetodate.
Sincethepledgedsharesinthiscasearenotsubjecttoredemption,the
CourtofAppealshadnobusinessinvokingandapplyingtheinexistent
rightofredemption.Wecannotthusagreethattheconsignedpayments
shouldbetreatedwithliberality,orsomehowconstruedashavingbeen
madeintheexerciseoftherightofredemption.Wealsomustrejectthe
appellatecourtsdeclarationthatthebuyerofatthepublicauctionisnot
ipsofactorenderedtheowneroftheauctionedshares,sincethedebtor
enjoystheoneyearredemptiveperiodtoredeemtheproperty.Obviously,
sincethereisnorighttoredeempersonalproperty,therightsofownership
vesteduntothepurchaserattheforeclosuresalearenotentangledinany
suspensiveconditionthatisimplicitinaredemptiveperiod.
TheCourtofAppealsalsofoundfaultwiththeapparentsaleinbulkof
thepledgedshares,notwithstandingthefactthattheseshareswereowned
by several people, on the premise the pledgors would be denied the
opportunitytoknow
_______________
1350Phil.512(1927).
14Sibalv.Valdez,Id.,atp.524.

VOL.479,JANUARY24,2006

581
581

Parayvs.Rodriguez

exactlyhowmuchtheywouldneedtoshouldertoexercisetherightto
redemption.Thisconcernisobviouslyrenderedanonissuebythefactthat
therecanbenorighttoredemptioninthefirstplace.Rule39oftheRules
ofCourtdoesprovideforinstanceswhenpropertiesforeclosedatthesame
time must be sold separately, such as in the case of lot sales for real
property under Section 19. However, these instances again pertain to
executionsalesandnotextrajudicialsales.NoprovisionintheRulesof
Courtorinanylawrequiresthatpledgedpropertiessoldatauctionbesold
separately.
Ontheotherhand,undertheCivilCode,itisthepledgee,andnotthe
pledgor,whoisgiventherighttochoosewhichoftheitemsshouldbesold
iftwoormorethingsarepledged.15Nosimilaroptionisgiventopledgors
under the Civil Code. Moreover, there is nothing in the Civil Code
provisions governing the extrajudicial sale of pledged properties that
prohibitsthepledgeeofseveraldifferentpledgecontractsfromauctioning
allofthepledgedpropertiesonasingleoccasion,orfromthebuyeratthe
auctionsaleinpurchasingallthepledgedpropertieswithasinglepurchase
price. The relative insignificance of ascertaining the definite
apportionmentsofthesalepricetotheindividualsharesliesinthefactthat
onceapledgeditemissoldatauction,neitherthepledgeenorthepledgor
can recover whatever deficiency or excess there may be between the
purchasepriceandtheamountoftheprincipalobligation.16
A different ruling though would obtain if at the auction, a bidder
expressed the desire to bid on a determinate number or portion of the
pledgedshares.Insuchacase,theremaylietheneedtoascertainwith
particularitywhichofthesharesarecoveredbythebidprice,sincenotall
ofthesharesmaybesoldattheauctionandcorrespondinglynotallofthe
pledgecontractsextinguished.Thesamesituationalsowouldlieif
_______________
15SeeCivilCode,Art.2119.
16SeeCivilCode,Art.2115.

582

582
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Parayvs.Rodriguez

one or some of the owners of the pledged shares participated in the


auction,biddingonlyontheirrespectivepledgedshares.However,inthis
case,noneofthepledgorsparticipatedintheauction,andthesolebidder
casthisbidforalloftheshares.Thereobviouslyisnolongeranypractical
reasontoapportionthebidpricetotherespectiveshares,sincenomatter
howslightorsignificantthevalueofthepurchasepricefortheindividual
share is, the sale is completed, with the pledgor and the pledgee not
entitledtorecovertheexcessorthedeficiency,asthecasemaybe.To
invalidatethesubjectauctionsolelyonthispointservesnocauseother
thantocelebrateformalityforformalityssake.
Clearly,thetheoryadoptedbytheCourtofAppealsisinshambles,and
cannot be resurrected. The question though yet remains whether the
consignationsmadebyrespondentsextinguishedtheirrespectivepledge
contractsinfavoroftheParayssoastoenjointhelatterfromauctioning
thepledgedshares.
Thereisnodoubtthatiftheprincipalobligationissatisfied,thepledges
shouldbeterminatedaswell.Article2098oftheCivilCodeprovidesthat
therightofthecreditortoretainpossessionofthepledgeditemexistsonly
untilthedebtispaid.Article2105oftheCivilCodefurtherclarifiesthat
thedebtorcannotaskforthereturnofthethingpledgedagainstthewillof
thecreditor,unlessanduntilhehaspaidthedebtanditsinterest.Atthe
same time, the right of the pledgee to foreclose the pledge is also
establishedundertheCivilCode.Whenthecredithasnotbeensatisfiedin
duetime,thecreditormayproceedwiththesalebypublicauctionunder
theprocedureprovidedunderArticle2112oftheCode.
Respondentsarguethattheirvariousconsignationsmadepriortothe
auctionsaledischargedthemfromtheloanandthepledgeagreements.
Theyaremistaken.
Petitionerspointoutthatwhiletheamountsconsignedbyrespondents
couldanswerfortheirrespectiveprincipalloanobligations,theywerenot
sufficienttocovertheinterestsdue
VOL.479,JANUARY24,2006

583
583

Parayvs.Rodriguez

ontheseloans,whichwerepeggedattherateof5%permonthor60%per
annum.BeforethisCourt,respondents,saveforDoloresSoberano,donot

contestthisinterestrateasallegedbypetitioners.Soberano,ontheother
hand,challengesthisinterestrateasusurious.17
Theparticularpledgecontractsdidnotformpartoftherecordselevated
tothisCourt.However,the5%monthlyinterestratewasnotedinthe
statementoffactsinthe14October1988RTCDecisionwhichhadsince
becomefinal.Moreover,thesaiddecisionpronouncedthatevenassuming
that the interest rates of the various loans were 5% per month, it is
doubtfulwhethertheinterestssochargedwereexorbitantlyorexcessively
usurious.Thisisbecauseforsometimenow,usuryhasbecomelegally
inexistent.18Thefinalityofthis1988Decisionisasettledfact,andthus
thetimetochallengethevalidityofthe5%monthlyinterestratehadlong
passed.Withthatinmind,thereisnoreasonfortheCourttodisagreewith
petitioners that in order that the consignation could have the effect of
extinguishingthepledgecontracts,suchamountsshouldcovernotjustthe
principalloans,butalsothe5%monthlyintereststhereon.
ItbearsnotingthattheCourtofAppealsalsoruledthatrespondentshad
satisfiedtherequirementsunderSection18,Rule39,whichprovidesthat
thejudgmentobligormaypreventthesalebypayingtheamountrequired
bytheexecutionandthecoststhathavebeenincurredtherein. 19However,
theprovisionappliesonlytoexecutionsales,andnotextrajudicialsales,as
evidencedbytheuseofthephrasessaleofpropertyonexecutionand
judgment obligor. The reference is inapropos, and even if it were
applicable,thefailureofthepaymenttocovertheinterestsduerendersit
insufficienttostaythesale.
_______________
17Rollo,p.67.
18Id.,atp.36.
19SeeRulesofCourt,Rule39,Sec.18.

584

584
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Parayvs.Rodriguez

TheeffectofthefinalityofthejudgmentsinCivilCasesNos.R20120
andR20131shouldalsonotbediscounted.Petitionersrighttoproceed
withtheauctionsalewasaffirmednotonlybylaw,butalsobyafinal
court judgment. Any subsequent court ruling that would enjoin the

petitionersfromexercisingsuchrightwouldhavetheeffectofsuperseding
afinalandexecutoryjudgment.
Finally,wecannothelpbutobservethatrespondentsmayhavesaved
themselvesmuchtroubleiftheysimplyparticipatedintheauctionsale,as
they are permitted to bid themselves on their pledged properties. 20
Moreover,theywouldhavehadabetterrighthadtheymatchedtheterms
of thehighestbidder.21 Under thecircumstances,with thehigh interest
paymentsthataccruedafterseveralyears,respondentswereevenplacedin
afavorablepositionbythepledgeagreements,sincethecreditorwouldbe
unabletorecoveranydeficiencyfromthedebtorsshouldthesalepricebe
insufficienttocovertheprincipalamountswithinterests.Certainly,had
respondentsparticipatedintheauction,therewouldhavebeenachancefor
them to recover the shares at a price lower than the amount that was
actuallyduefromthemtotheParays.Thatrespondentsfailedtoavailof
thisbeneficialresortwhollyaccordedthembylawistheirloss.Now,all
respondentscanrecoveristheamountstheyhadconsigned.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.Theassaileddecisionofthe
CourtofAppealsisSETASIDEandthedecisionoftheCebuCityRTC,
Branch 16, dated 18 November 1992 is REINSTATED. Costs against
respondents.
SOORDERED.
Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio and CarpioMorales, JJ.,
concur.
_______________
20SeeCivilCode,Art.2113.
21Ibid.

VOL.479,JANUARY24,2006

585
585

Republicvs.Naguiat

Petition granted, assailed decision set aside. That of the Cebu City
RegionalTrialCourt,Br.16reinstated.
Note.Thelegalperspectivewithinwhichtherighttoredeemcanstill
beavailedofornotmustbeviewedinthelightofthe dictum thatthe
policy of the law is to aid rather than defeat the right of redemption.
(Cometavs.CourtofAppeals,351SCRA294[2001])

o0o
Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.