GR 141855; (February, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141855 February 6, 2001
ZACARIAS COMETA and HERCO REALTY & AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE FRANCO, respondents.
FACTS
In 1976, a final judgment was rendered ordering Zacarias Cometa to pay Jose Franco damages. To satisfy the judgment, two of Cometa’s commercial lots were levied and sold at public auction to Franco in 1978 for the exact judgment amount of P57,396.85, despite an alleged conservative valuation of P500,000.00. Cometa and Herco Realty (to which Cometa had allegedly transferred the lots) filed an action to annul the levy and sale, contesting its validity. In a related proceeding, the Supreme Court in 1987 withheld the issuance of a writ of possession to Franco, ruling that the validity of the execution sale must first be resolved in the pending annulment case, especially given the gross inadequacy of the purchase price. However, the annulment case was eventually dismissed for failure to prosecute, a dismissal affirmed with finality by the Supreme Court in 1997.
ISSUE
Whether the heirs of Cometa retain the right to redeem the properties after the final dismissal of their action to annul the execution sale.
RULING
No, the right of redemption was lost. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision denying the redemption. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of the dismissal of the annulment case. That dismissal, which became final and executory, constituted a conclusive adjudication that the execution sale was valid and regular. The Court’s earlier 1987 ruling withholding the writ of possession was expressly conditional, pending the outcome of the annulment suit. Once that suit was finally dismissed, the impediment to Franco’s entitlement to possession was removed, and the legal consequences of a valid execution sale became absolute. A redemption period, by law, is peremptory and not tolled by the filing of an action questioning the sale’s validity unless a restraining order is issued. No such order was secured here. The heirs’ attempt to redeem years after the sale and after losing their challenge to its validity is inconsistent and comes too late. The finality of the annulment case’s dismissal precludes them from resurrecting the issue of the sale’s validity through a belated offer to redeem.