G.R. No. 178242 ; January 20, 2009
HEIRS OF NORBERTO J. QUISUMBING, Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK and SANTIAGO LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

FACTS

In 1984, spouses Ricardo C. Silverio and Beatriz Sison-Silverio, and Ricardo C. Silverio as Chairman of Delta Motors Corporation, Komatsu Industries, and R.C. Silverio Management Corporation, assigned to Atty. Norberto J. Quisumbing their rights of redemption over various real properties foreclosed by the Philippine National Bank (PNB). The properties included lots in Quezon City, Manila, Pampanga, Bulacan, Tagaytay, Nueva Ecija, Baguio, Benguet, Zambales, and Pasong Tamo, Makati. By letter dated April 8, 1985, Quisumbing made a formal tender of redemption to PNB, requesting the total redemption price. On April 23, 1985, he executed an Affidavit of Redemption. Before the redemption period expired, PNB, by letter dated May 3, 1985, denied Quisumbing’s offer, citing invalid Deeds of Assignment, improper tender without actual payment, and an insufficient offer under Section 25 of P.D. No. 694. Quisumbing filed a complaint against PNB to compel redemption. During pendency, Quisumbing died and was substituted by his heirs. Santiago Land Development Corporation (SLDC) intervened, having purchased the Pasong Tamo property pendente lite from PNB. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling no valid tender of redemption and that Section 25 of P.D. No. 694 applied. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding no valid offer to redeem due to failure to tender payment. Petitioners appealed, insisting a valid tender was made and assailing the constitutionality of Section 25 of P.D. No. 694.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Atty. Norberto J. Quisumbing made a valid tender of redemption over the foreclosed properties.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that Quisumbing did not make a valid tender of redemption. A valid tender of redemption requires the debtor to pay or consign the redemption price to the creditor. Quisumbing’s letter was merely an offer to redeem and a request for computation, not an actual tender of payment. His subsequent filing of the complaint constituted an action for specific performance, not a judicial redemption, as he did not consign the redemption price with the court. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the constitutionality of Section 25 of P.D. No. 694 or the validity of the Deeds of Assignment, as the lack of a valid tender was dispositive. The Court also noted that SLDC, as a purchaser pendente lite, was bound by the outcome of the case.