PROPERTY

DIGESTS (2013 2014)

ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO

G.R. No. 132768 September 9, 2005 BIANA v. GIMENEZ Plaintiffs: JAIME B. BIANA Defendant: GEORGE GIMENEZ CASE: Gimenez was one of the defendants who lost in a labor case. As such, he and his co-defendants had to pay their opponent Santos B. Mendones. The petitioners failed to pay, so Sheriff Renato Madera issued a levy on 4 parcels of land titled to them. Subsequently a public auction was held, and Mendones acquired the lots under a Provisional Deed of Sale. For purposes of paying the redemption price of the subject properties, Gimenez deposited with Provincial Sheriff Manuel Garchitorena the sum of P5,625.89 for which the latter issued a receipt. Later, Sheriff Madera wrote that Gimenez still owed a sum for the redemption price including the publication fee. Gimenez claims to have paid the publication fee in full already. The 1-year redemption period lapsed so an Absolute Deed of Sale was issued to Mendones (who later assigned all his rights to Jaime B. Biana). Gimenez thus filed a petition for mandamus to order the Sheriffs to issue a deed of redemption in his favor. The Supreme Court ruled that when Gimenezs deposit of checks for the redemption of the properties were valid even though they were postdated, because a tender of a check is sufficient for purposes of redemption although it does not lift the obligation of the redemptioner to pay for the property to be redeemed. In addition, the Court upheld the nullification of the Deed of Sale saying that an independent suit for such was not necessary since Gimenez prayed for it anyway. DOCTRINE: The right of redemption involves the exercise of a right, and as such, what applies is the settled rule that a mere tender of a check is sufficient to compel redemption.

BACKGROUND: In a labor case before the Naga City District Office of the Department of Labor and Employment (Santos B. Mendones v. Gimenez Park Subdivision and George Gimenez), defendants therein including herein respondent had to pay Mendones a sum of P1,520 as well as sheriffs fees and expenses of execution. Deputy Sheriff Renato Madera computed the judgment obligation to be at P5,248.50 and demanded its payment. Defendants failed to pay so Sheriff Madera proceeded to levy and attach 4 parcels of land which were registered in the names of Jose Gimenez, Tessa Gimenez, Maricel Gimenez and herein respondent George Gimenez. December 6, 1978 a public auction was held for the 4 parcels of land, and Mendones won as sole bidder. Thus, a Provisional Certificate of Sale was issued for Mendones. Gimenez claims that he was not notified of the execution sale, and such only came to his knowledge when a representative of Sheriff Madera asked him to pay the publication fee (P3,510), which he paid in full through checks. For the purpose of paying the redemption price of the parcels of land sold at the execution sale, Gimenez approached Provincial Sheriff Manuel Garchitorena (because he could not locate Sheriff Madera) who informed him that he had a total balance of P6,625.89. Thus, Gimenez issued 4 checks and was issued a receipt for the amount of P5,625.89 on July 19, 1979 (4 months and 18 days before the expiration of the 1-year redemption period). December 3, 1979 Sheriff Madera wrote Gimenezs counsel that the 1-year redemption period will expire on December 7, and Gimenez still has a balance, including the publication fee. This was contested by Gimenez saying he had paid the publication fee in full to the publisher Bicol Star.

RACHELLE ANNE GUTIERREZ

PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 2014)

ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO

December 8, 1979 Sheriff Madera issued a Definite Deed of Sale in favor of Mendones. Meanwhile, for allegedly having paid the full redemption price, respondent Gimenez requested Sheriff Garchitorena to execute a deed of redemption in his favor, but was refused. Gimenez filed with the Regional Trial Court a special civil action for mandamus to compel Sheriff Garchitorena and Madera to execute the deed of redemption. o During the pendency of the case, Mendones assigned his rights over the disputed property to Jaime Biana for P1M. January 20, 1999 The RTC ruled in favor of Gimenez and declared the deed of sale null and void, and ordered the execution of the Deed of Redemption in favor of Gimenez. July 19, 1997 Court of Appeals affirmed in toto.

This is strengthened by the fact that Sheriff Madera himself deducted the 4 checks issued by Gimenez from the latters liability when he submitted the itemization requested by the latters counsel.

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED: 1. Whether or not the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Sur be legally compelled to execute a deed of redemption in favor of Gimenez RESOLUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ISSUE 1 Whether or not the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Sur be legally compelled to execute a deed of redemption in favor of Gimenez. Major Point 1: The right of redemption involves the exercise of a right, and as such, what applies is the settled rule that a mere tender of a check is sufficient to compel redemption. Petitioner contends that there is yet no redemption because what were tendered were postdated checks. To petitioner, the tender did not operate as payment of the redemption price, hence respondent is not entitled to a deed of redemption. Fortunato v. CA A check may be used for the exercise of the right of redemptionThe tender of a check is sufficient to compel redemption but is not in itself a payment that relieves the redemptioner from his liability to pay the redemption price.

Major Point 2: The Court may rule on the nullification of the Deed of Sale since it was specifically prayed for by respondent. Petitioner argues that because the Deed of Sale had already been issued, it was an error to have even entertained Gimenezs suit for mandamus. Petitioner adds that respondent should have filed an independent action to nullify the Deed of Sale. The Supreme Court cited that along with the petition for mandamus with damages, petitioner prayed for the Deed of Sale to be declared null and void. Since a prayer for the nullification of the deed was already brought before the court, an independent action for the nullification thereof would only result in the multiplicity of suit. FINAL VERDICT: The Supreme Court agrees with the ruling of the lower courts that there has been a valid payment of the redemption price which would entitle respondent to the issuance of a Deed of Redemption in his favor. NO SEPARATE OPINIONS

RACHELLE ANNE GUTIERREZ