201 - Fortunado v.

CA
GR No. 78556; 21 April 1991;

DOCTRINE (from Campos p. 546)

In case of redemption of property sold under execution, a tender of payment within the prescribed period, of the redemption
price by check which was accepted by the sheriff, constitutes valid exercise of redemption, without prejudice to the actual
payment of the purchase price. Redemption is a right and not an obligation, and thus not covered by Art. 1249, CC.

FACTS
- On April 21, 1981, RTC-QC rendered judgment in a civil case entitled Alfaro Fortunado v. Angel Bautista ordering
the defendant (Bautista) to pay damages to the plaintiff. Pursuant to the judgment, the respondent sheriff levied upon two
parcels of land registered in the name of Bautista.
 The second lot had already been purchased by respondent National Steel Corporation (NSC) but had not
yet been registered.

- The lots were sold at a public auction to the petitioners as the only bidder. They were issued a certificate of sale.

- On Jan 10, 1985, NSC gave notice to the sheriff of its intention to redeem the second lot. The sheriff suggested that
both lots should be redeemed as the two lots were sold for a lump sum price of P267,013.

- On Feb 11, 1985, NSC filed with the trial court an Urgent Motion to Redeem both lots. This was opposed by the
petitioners on the ground that the movant did not have personality to intervene.

- As the period of redemption would expire on April 18, 1985, NSC issued to the sheriff on March 20, 1985, a
PNB check in the amount of P296,384.43 as the redemption price for the second lot. The sheriff acknowledged
receipt of the same check.
 On March 21, 1985, Bautista sent the sheriff a Letter bearing NSC’s conformity in which he availed himself of
NSC’s check, which was sufficient to cover the full redemption price for both lots, to redeem the other lot.
 The letter contained a reservation that the redemption is made solely for the purpose of effecting the
execution and delivery to Bautista of the necessary certificate of redemption. It shall not be taken as his
acknowledgement of the validity of the writ of execution and sale or as a waiver of legal remedies available to him.
 The sheriff acknowledged receipt of the check as redemption for the two parcels of land on March 21, 1985. He
issued a certificate of redemption the next day in favor of NSC and Bautista.

- In an Urgent Motion, Bautista prayed that the sum covered by the PNB check be delivered and kept by the Clerk of
Court of the RTC-QC until such time as all incidents relative to the validity of the auction sale conducted by the sheriff
were finally resolved.

- Upon being notified of the said deposit, the counsel for the petitioners told the sheriff that he was rejecting the
check because it was not legal tender and was not intended for payment but merely for deposit as evidenced by
Bautista’s Urgent Motion.

- The petitioner requested the sheriff to issue a final deed of sale over the two lots and deliver the same to them on
the ground that no valid redemption had been effected within the 12-month period from the registration of the sale. When
the request was not granted, petitioners filed with the CA a Petition for Mandamus.

1
  Petitioners argued that Art. 12491, CC was applicable to redemption under Rule 39, Section 30, ROC
 Since the check issued by NSC is not legal tender, it could not be considered payment of the redemption price.

- CA: denied mandamus

 Rejected the contention that Art. 1249 was applicable in cases of redemption
 Reiterated that settled jurisprudence that the right of redemption is not an obligation nor is it intended to
discharge a pre-existing debt, the right of redemption being in fact a privilege
 Cited Javellana v. Mirasol and ruled that the redemption was not rendered invalid by the fact that the officer
accepted a check for the amount necessary to make a redemption instead of requiring payment of money.

- Petitioners filed an Appeal by Certiorari.

ISSUE: W/N redemption had been validly effected by private respondents NSC and Bautista – Yes.

HELD: Petition denied. CA Decision affirmed.

RATIO

Tolentino v. CA, citing Javellana v. Mirasol, stresses the liberality of the courts in redemption cases.

- The right of redemption is an absolute privilege, the exercise of which is entirely dependent upon the will and
discretion of the redemptioners. There is no obligation to exercise the redemption.

- If the redemptioners choose to exercise their right, it is the policy of the law to aid rather than defeat the right of
redemption. It should be looked upon with favor and where no injury is to follow, a liberal construction will be given to our
redemption laws as well as to the exercise of the right of redemption.

Redemption is not rendered invalid by fact that the officer accepted a check for the amount necessary to make
the redemption instead of requiring payment in money.

- If he had seen fit to do so, the officer could have required payment to be made in lawful money, and he
undoubtedly, in accepting a check, placed himself in a position where he could be liable to the purchaser at the public
auction if any damage had been suffered by the latter as a result of the medium in which payment was made.

- Validity of payment is not affected. The check as a medium of payment in commercial transaction is too firmly
established by usage to permit of any doubt upon this point at the present day.

- Here, although the private respondents did not file a redemption case, against the petitioners, it should be noted
respondent NSC filed an Urgent Motion for Redemption dated Feb 11, 1985, and Bautista filed an Urgent Motion (to
Deposit Redemption Money with QC Clerk of Court) dated March 27, 1985. The motions were well within the redemption
period.

Minor issue: W/N Bautista’s letter where he made his redemption subject to the reservation [that it shall not be
taken to mean his acknowledgement to the validity of the writ of execution and sale or as waiver of any legal
remedies available to him] is valid – Yes, it is valid.
1

Art. 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such
currency, then in the currency which is the legal tender of the Philippines. xxx

2
- Had he not made the reservation, estoppel might have operated against him since redemption is an implied
admission of the regularity of the sale.

- In questioning the writ of execution and sale and at the same time redeeming his property, Bautista was exercising
alternative reliefs. The right of redemption is always considered compatible with ownership, and one who fails to obtain
relief in the sense of absolute owner may successfully assert the other right.

Clarification

- The decision does not sanction use of check for payment of obligations over the objection of the creditor.

- The decision holds that a check may be used for the exercise of the right of redemption, the same being a right and
not an obligation. The tender of a check is sufficient to compel redemption but is not itself a payment that relieves
the redemptioner from his liability to pay the redemption price.

- Thus, private respondents properly exercised their right of redemption. However, they remain liable for the payment
of the redemption price.