SPOUSES FRANCISCO D. YAP and WHELMA S. YAP vs.

development, the tender of the redemption money was being

SPOUSES ZOSIMO DY, SR. and NATIVIDAD CHIU DY, considered as a consignation.
SPOUSES MARCELINO MAXINO and REMEDIOS L.
The Dys and the Maxinos filed for accounting, injunction,
MAXINO, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS ORIENTAL
declaration of nullity (with regard to Lot 3) of the Deed of
and DUMAGUETE RURAL BANK, INC., 2011
Sale with Agreement to Mortgage, and damages against the
PONENTE: VILLARAMA JR., J.
Yaps and DRBI.
RTC-held that the Dys and the Maxinos failed to exercise their
NATURE: petitions for review on certiorari rights of redemption properly and timely. They merely deposited
the amount of ₱50,625.29 with the Sheriff, whereas the amount
FACTS: due on the mortgage deed is ₱216,040.93.

* SPS Tirambulos are the registered owners of several parcels CA- REVERSED AND SET ASIDE RTC
of land located in Ayungon, Negros Oriental. The TirambulosHence, this petition.
likewise own a parcel of land denominated as Lot 846,
ISSUE/S:
covered by Tax Declaration No. 08109.
1.)whether or not the redemption was valid or not ? YES on
* The Tirambulos executed two separate Rea l Estate
two lots only. Not valid on lot 3
Mortgage over 7 lots in favor of the Rural Bank of Dumaguete,
2.)Is Lot 3 among the foreclosed properties? NO, NOT
Inc., to secure a ₱105,000 and ₱28,000 loan.
INCLUDED.
Subsequently, the Tirambulos sold all seven mortgaged lots 3.) To whom should the payment of redemption money be
to SPS DY and the spouses Maxinos without the consent made?
and knowledge of DRBI. This sale, which was embodied in a
Deed of Absolute Sale, was followed by a default on the partHELD: SC- DENIED THE PETITIONS FOR LACK OF MERIT.
of the Tirambulos to pay their loans to DRBI. Thus, DRBI AFFIRMED THE CA WITH MODIFICATION AND REMANDED
extrajudicially foreclosed first 5 lots and sold it at a public TO THE RTC FOR the computation of the pro-rata value of
auction. properties TO DETRMINE IF THERE WAS OVERPAYMENT
to be refunded to SPS DY AND SPS MAXINOS with regard
At the auction sale, DRBI was proclaimed the highest bidder to the redemption money they paid.
and bought said lots for ₱216,040.93. The Sheriff’s
Certificate of Sale stated that the "sale is subject to the rights RATIO:
of redemption of the mortgagor (s) or any other persons 1.)The requisites for a valid redemption are: (1) the
authorized by law so to do, within a period of one (1) year redemption must be made within twelve (12) months from
from registration hereof." The certificate of sale, however, the time of the registration of the sale in the Office of the
was not registered until almost a year later. Register of Deeds; (2) payment of the purchase price of the
Twelve (12) days after the sale was registered, DRBI sold property involved, plus 1% interest per month thereon in
Lots the 3 lots to the spouses Yaps under a Deed of Sale addition, up to the time of redemption, together with the
with Agreement to Mortgage. amount of any assessments or taxes which the purchaser
may have paid thereon after the purchase, also with 1%
Within the redemption period, the Yaps filed a Motion for Writ interest on such last named amount; and (3) written notice of
of Possession alleging that they have acquired all the rights the redemption must be served on the officer who made the
and interests of DRBI over the foreclosed properties and are sale and a duplicate filed with the Register of Deeds of the
entitled to immediate possession of the same because the province.43
one-year redemption period has lapsed without any There is no issue as to the first and third requisites.
redemption being made which was eventually granted.
The second requisite, the proper redemption price, is the
A month before the expiration of the redemption period, the main subject of contention of the opposing parties.
Dys and the Maxinos attempted to redeem the 3 lots in
question. They tendered the amount of ₱40,000.00 to DRBIThe Yaps argue that ₱40,000.00 cannot be a valid tender of
and the Yaps, but both refused, contending that the redemption since the amount of the auction sale was
redemption should be for the full amount of the winning bid ₱216,040.93. They further contend that the mortgage is
of ₱216,040.93 plus interest for all the foreclosed properties. indivisible so in order for the tender to be valid and effectual,
it must be for the entire auction price plus legal interest.
One lot was not included in the foreclosure proceedings.
We cannot subscribe to the Yaps’ argument on the
In a letter to the Provincial Sheriff on May 31, 1984, the Yaps indivisibility of the mortgage. As held in the case of Philippine
refused to take delivery of the redemption price arguing that National Bank v. De los Reyes,44 the doctrine of indivisibility
one of the characteristics of a mortgage is its indivisibility of mortgage does not apply once the mortgage is
and that one cannot redeem only some of the lots foreclosed extinguished by a complete foreclosure thereof as in the
because all the parcels were sold for a single price at the instant case. The Court held:
auction sale.18
The parties were accordingly embroiled in a hermeneutic
On June 1, 1984, the Provincial Sheriff wrote the Dys and disparity on their aforesaid contending positions. Yet, the rule
the Maxinos informing them of the Yaps’ refusal to takeon the indivisibility of mortgage finds no application to the
delivery of the redemption money and that in view of said
case at bar. The particular provision of the Civil Codereferredto effect a redemption by a redemptioner, whereupon the
to provides: effect of the sale is terminated and he is restored to his
estate, and the person to whom the payment is made must
Art. 2089. A pledge or mortgage is indivisible, even though
execute and deliver to him a certificate of redemption
the debt may be divided among the successors in interest of
acknowledged or approved before a notary public or other
the debtor or of the creditor.
officer authorized to take acknowledgments of conveyances
Therefore, the debtor’s heir who has paid a part of the debt of real property. Such certificate must be filed and recorded
cannot ask for the proportionate extinguishment of the in the office of the registrar of deeds of the province in which
pledge or mortgage as long as the debt is not completely the property is situated, and the registrar of deeds must note
satisfied. the record thereof on the margin of the record of the
certificate of sale. The payments mentioned in this and the
Neither can the creditor’s heir who received his share of the
last preceding sections may be made to the purchaser or
debt return the pledge or cancel the mortgage, to the
redemptioner, or for him to the officer who made the sale.
prejudice of the other heirs who have not been paid.
(Emphasis supplied.)
From these provisions is excepted the case in which, there
Here, the Dys and the Maxinos complied with the above-
being several things given in mortgage or pledge, each one
quoted provision. Well within the redemption period, they
of these guarantees only a determinate portion of the credit.
initially attempted to pay the redemption money not only to
The debtor, in this case, shall have a right to the the purchaser, DRBI, but also to the Yaps. Both DRBI and
extinguishment of the pledge or mortgage as the portion of the Yaps however refused, insisting that the Dys and
the debt for which each thing is specially answerable is Maxinos should pay the whole purchase price at which all
satisfied. the foreclosed properties were sold during the foreclosure
sale. Because of said refusal, the Dys and Maxinos correctly
From the foregoing, it is apparent that what the law
availed of the alternative remedy by going to the sheriff who
proscribes is the foreclosure of only a portion of the property
made the sale. As held in Natino v. Intermediate Appellate
or a number of the several properties mortgaged
Court,40 the tender of the redemption money may be made
corresponding to the unpaid portion of the debt where before
to the purchaser of the land or to the sheriff. If made to the
foreclosure proceedings partial payment was made by the
sheriff, it is his duty to accept the tender and execute the
debtor on his total outstanding loan or obligation. This also
certificate of redemption.
means that the debtor cannot ask for the release of any
portion of the mortgaged property or of one or some of the
several lots mortgaged unless and until the loan thus,
secured has been fully paid, notwithstanding the fact that
there has been a partial fulfillment of the obligation. Hence, it
is provided that the debtor who has paid a part of the debt
cannot ask for the proportionate extinguishment of the
mortgage as long as the debt is not completely satisfied.

2.)The CA correctly ruled that the Dys and Maxinos were

able to prove their claim that Lot 3 was not among the
properties foreclosed and that it was merely inserted by the
bank in the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale. A perusal of DRBI’s
application for foreclosure of real estate mortgage shows
that it explicitly refers to only one deed of mortgage to settle
the Tirambulos’ indebtedness amounting to ₱216,040.93.
This is consistent with the Notice of Extrajudicial Sale of
Mortgaged Property, published in the Dumaguete Star
Informer, announcing the sale of the first 5 lots for the
satisfaction of the indebtedness amounting to ₱216,040.93.

It is also consistent with the fact that the first 5 lots are
covered by only one real estate mortgage, the Real Estate
Mortgage. DRBI failed to refute these pieces of evidence
against it.

3.)Section 31,39 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court then

applicable provides:
SEC. 31. Effect of redemption by judgment debtor, and a
certificate to be delivered and recorded thereupon. To whom
payments on redemption made.—If the judgment debtor
redeem, he must make the same payments as are required