GR 149121; (April, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149121 ; April 20, 2010
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Petitioner, vs. AUGUSTO BASA, JR., LUZ BASA and EDUARDO S. BASA, Respondents.
FACTS
The National Housing Authority (NHA) extrajudicially foreclosed a mortgage over properties owned by spouses Augusto and Luz Basa after they defaulted on a loan. The properties were sold at public auction with NHA as the highest bidder. The sheriff’s certificate of sale was registered and annotated on the owners’ duplicate certificates of title on April 16, 1991. This was done because the original titles in the Register of Deeds’ custody were destroyed in a 1988 fire. After the one-year redemption period lapsed without redemption, NHA consolidated ownership and obtained a writ of possession from the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Before the writ could be enforced, the Basas, along with Eduardo Basa, filed a petition for intervention. They sought to set aside the foreclosure sale, alleging procedural defects in the notices. Crucially, they argued their right of redemption had not prescribed. They contended that under the doctrine from Bernardez v. Reyes, registration of the sheriff’s certificate of sale is deemed effective only upon its inscription on the original copy of the title in the Register of Deeds’ custody. Since the original titles were burned, they claimed the annotation on their duplicate copies was ineffective to start the redemption period.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the annotation of the sheriff’s certificate of sale solely on the owners’ duplicate certificates of title, due to the loss of the originals, constitutes effective registration that commences the one-year redemption period under Act No. 3135 .
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NHA, holding that the redemption period had validly expired. The Court clarified that the rule requiring annotation on the original certificate of title is not absolute. It established a logical exception when the original title is lost or unavailable. In such cases, annotation on the existing duplicate copy constitutes effective registration for the purpose of commencing the redemption period.
The legal logic is grounded in practicality and the prevention of absurdity. The Court reasoned that to require inscription on a non-existent original title would be an impossibility and would unjustly extend the redemption period indefinitely, to the prejudice of the mortgagee-purchaser. This ruling is consistent with the principle that the law does not require a vain act. The Basas, as registered owners, held the duplicate titles, and annotation thereon served the essential notice function of registration. Therefore, the one-year period began on April 16, 1991, and expired on April 16, 1992. Their failure to redeem within this period vested absolute ownership in NHA. The Court found no merit in the ancillary procedural challenges to the foreclosure, as the Basas failed to substantiate their claims of defective notice with clear and convincing evidence.