Jaime B. Biana v. George G.
Gimenez The counsel of Gimenez asked for details of said account but
Facts: For failure to pay for a judgment obligation, 4
parcels of land were levied and attached by the Sheriff
Madera. Mendones won these parcels of land by bidding in
a public auction.
Upon being informed, Gimenez issued checks as payment
for the publication fee and the redemption price through
Sheriff Garchitorena. Sheriff Madera, on the other hand,
sent an itemization to Gimenez’s counsel which asks for the
publication fee, but Gimenez disagreed as he already paid
them in full. Nonetheless, Deputy Sheriff Madera executed
a Definite Deed of Sale in favor of Mendones.
Issues: Whether or not there was a valid payment of the
redemption price.
Ruling: Yes. 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 in itself a payment that relieves the
redemptioner from his liability to pay the redemption
price. In other words, while we hold that the private
respondents properly exercise their right of redemption,
they remain liable, of course, for the payment of the
redemption price.
FACTS: In a labor case entitled Santos B. Mendones vs.
Gimenez Park Subdivision and George Gimenez, the
defendants were ordered to pay Mendones P5248.50, as
computed by Deputy Sheriff Renato Madera. For failure to
pay, Sheriff Madera proceeded to levy and attach 4 parcels of
urban land in the names of Jose F. Gimenez, Tessa F.
Gimenez, Maricel G. Gimenez and respondent George
Gimenez.
On Dec. 6, 1978, a public auction was conducted wherein
Mendones won with his bid of P8,908.50, representing the
judgment obligation plus expenses of execution. Thus,
a Provisional Certificate of Sale was issued and registered in
the name of Mendones on Dec. 7 1978.
According to Gimenez, he was not duly informed or notified
of the execution sale and that he knew only when he was
asked to pay the publication fee of the execution sale in the
amount of P3,510.00, which he immediately paid in full.
Gimenez was then informed that the redemption price was
P6,615.89 including interest and sheriff’s fee. He issued 4
checks totaling to said amount in the name of Sheriff
Garchitorena, since he cannot locate Deputy Sheriff Madera.
Sheriff Garchitorena issued a receipt dated July 19, 1979, 4
months and 18 days before the expiration of the 1-year
redemption period, acknowledging he received P5,615.89
from Gimenez “in full payment and satisfaction of judgment.”
On Dec. 3, 1979, Sheriff Madera informed the counsel of
Gimenez that the 1-year redemption period will soon expire
and that his client still has an unpaid balance of P4,367.81.
disagreed with the itemization made by Sheriff Madera on the
publication fee since he had already paid for them through
Sheriff Garchitorena. Nonetheless, Deputy Sheriff Madera
executed in favor of Mendones a Definite Deed of Sale.
Gimenez then requested Sheriff Garchitorena to execute a
deed of redemption in his favor. His request having been
refused, respondent then filed with the RTC a special civil
action for mandamus with damages to compel the sheriffs to
execute the desired deed of redemption which includes an
alternative prayer that if a definite deed of sale was already
issued in favor of Mendones, the same be declared null and
void.
During the pendency of the case, Mendones assigned his right
he acquired on auction to Jaime Biana in consideration of P1
million.
The trial court ruled in favor of Gimenez, declaring the
Definite Deed of Sale null and void and ordering the
Provincial Sheriff to execute a Deed of Redemption
reconveying the parcels of land to Gimenez. Upon appeal, the
CA affirmed in toto the decision of RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the checks issued by Gimenez are
valid payments of the redemption price and therefore entitles
him to the issuance of a Deed of Redemption.
RULING: YES. The instant case involves not the payment of
an obligation but the exercise of a right, i.e., the right of
redemption. What applies is the settled rule that a mere tender
of a check is sufficient to compel redemption. In the case
of Fortunado, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 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 in itself a payment
that relieves the redemptioner from his liability to pay the
redemption price. In other words, while we hold that the
private respondents properly exercise their right of
redemption, they remain liable, of course, for the payment of
the redemption price.
Also, the Court found it necessary to annul the Definite Deed
of Sale in favor of Mendones to give effect to the judgment
ordering the sheriffs to execute a Deed of Redemption in favor
of Gimenez. It is in consonance with the finding that Gimenez
had made a valid redemption within the reglementary period
for redemption.