HUERTA ALBA RESORT INC.

Vs
CA
GR NO. 128567 September 1,2000

FACTS:
Private respondent Syndicated Management Group, Inc. (SMGI), as mortgagee-assignee of
Intercom Fund Resource, Inc., filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure of four parcels of land
mortgaged by petitioner Huerta Alba Resort, Inc. before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.
The trial court ruled in favor of private respondent and ordered the petitioner to pay all its
obligations within a period of not less than 150 days from receipt of the decision. The appeals to
the Court of Appeals as well as the Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court filed by
petitioner were all dismissed. The dismissal became final and executory and it was entered in
the Book of Entries of Judgment on March 14, 1994.
Accordingly, a writ of execution was issued and the auction sale of the subject properties was set
on September 6, 1994. The petitioner then questioned the issuance of the said Writ of Execution
by claiming that the 150-day period for petitioner to pay the judgment obligation had not yet
lapsed. This issue was again raised by petitioner to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
ruled that the 150-day period should be computed from the date the petitioner was notified of
the Entry of Judgment and it expired on September 11, 1994. Subsequently, the trial court
confirmed the sale of subject properties to the private respondent. When the private respondent
filed a motion for a Writ of Possession, again it was opposed by petitioner by filing a motion to
compel private respondent to accept redemption. This is the first time petitioner asserted its
right to redeem the subject properties under Section 78 of Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus filed by private respondents, the Court of Appeals set aside the said Order of the trial
court. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether CA erred in ruling that Huerta Alba had no right of redemption but only the
equity of redemption?
RULING:
NO. The Court ruled that the claim that petitioner is not entitled to the beneficial provisions of
Section 78 of Limpin vs. IAC (166 SCRA 87), the sale of the subject properties, operated to divest
the rights of all the parties to the action and to vest their rights in private respondent. There
then existed only what is known as the equity of redemption.This is simply the right of
the defendant mortgagor to extinguish the mortgage and retain ownership of the property by
paying the secured debt within the 90-day period after the judgment becomes final, in
accordance with Rule 68, or even after the foreclosure sale but prior to its confirmation.There
being an explicit finding by the Court of Appeals in its decision that the herein petitioner failed
to exercise its equity of redemption within the prescribed period, redemption can no longer be
effected. The confirmation of the sale and the issuance of the transfer certificates of title
covering the subject properties to private respondent was in order. The trial court, therefore, has
the ministerial duty to place private respondent in the possession of subject properties.