General Vs Barrameda
General Vs Barrameda
General Vs Barrameda
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME069
182
FIRST DIVISION.
183
183
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000158687848440b85d6c2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/11
11/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME069
2/11
11/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME069
184
3/11
11/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME069
185
4/11
11/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME069
186
5/11
11/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME069
187
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000158687848440b85d6c2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
6/11
11/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME069
188
7/11
11/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME069
189
8/11
11/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME069
459 and the word sale in Sec. 32 of Act 2938, and Sec. 30
of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, pales into insignificance in
the light of Our stand that those words used
interchangeably refer to one thing, and that is the public
auction sale required by law in the disposition of properties
foreclosed or levied upon. Our stand in the Salazar case
and in those mentioned therein (Garcia vs. Ocampo, G.R.
No. L13029, June 30, 1959 Gonzales et al. vs. Philippine
National Bank et al. 48 Phil. 824) is firmly planted on the
premise that registration of the deed of conveyance for
properties brought under the Torrens System is the
operative act to transfer title to the property and
registration is also the notice to the whole world that a
transaction involving the same had taken place.
To affirm the previous stand this Court has taken on the
question of when the one year period of redemption should
start (from the time of registration of the sale) would better
serve the ends of justice and equity especially in this case,
since to rule otherwise would result in preventing the
respondentmortgagor from redeeming his 59.4687
hectares of land which was acquired by the Development
Bank of the Philippines as the highest bidder at the
auction sale for the low price of only P7,271.22 which was
simply the unpaid balance of the mortgage debt of
P22,000.00 after the respondentmortgagor had paid the
sum of P14,728.78. As it is, affirmance of the Appellate
Courts decision would not result in any loss to petitioners
since the amount of P7,271.22 they paid to the Bank will be
returned to them. What further strengthens Our stand is
the fact found by the respondent Appellate Court that
respondent Barrameda has always been in possession of
the disputed land.
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, We find it no
longer necessary to determine whether the petitioners are
purchasers in good faith of the land involved, since the
respondent Barrameda redeemed the mortgaged property
within the legal period of redemption and, consequently the
sale of the property executed on September 3, 1963, by the
Development Bank of the
190
190
9/11
11/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME069
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Muoz Palma
and Martin, JJ., concur.
Decision affirmed.
Notes.Mere inadequacy of the price obtained at the
sheriffs sale unless shocking to the conscience will not be
sufficient to set aside the sale if there is no showing that in
the event of a regular sale, a better price can be obtained.
(Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Vda, de. Moll, 43
SCRA 82).
The redemption of foreclosed property is effective even if
the redemptioner failed to include the assessments, taxes
and commissions paid by the purchaser (Reyes vs. de los
Santos, 50 SCRA 431). Under Section 30, Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court, a notice of any assessments or taxes paid
mast be given to the officer who made the sale and filed
with the register of deeds. If such notice be not filed, the
property may be redeemed without paying such
assessments, taxes, or liens. (See Reyes vs. Chavoso, 27
SCRA 1253 Papa vs. Manalo, 29 Phil 360 Javellana vs.
Mirasol, 40 Phil. 761 Basco vs. Gonzales, 59 Phil. 1 Reyes
vs. Tolentino, 42 SCRA 365).
The provincial sheriff is, in accordance with law, a
proper party to accept the payment of redemption money
for the purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale. The
argument that the sheriff may lawfully accept the
redemption money for the purchaser only (1) if said
purchaser unlawfully refused to accept the redemption
money, or (2) if said purchaser had authorized the sheriff to
accept such redemption money, is not meritorious as no
such conditions are imposed by the Rules (Reyes vs. Reyes,
27 SCRA 427 Reyes vs. de los Santos, 50 SCRA 433).
o0o
191
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000158687848440b85d6c2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
10/11
11/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME069
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000158687848440b85d6c2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
11/11