G.R. No. 124347 July 21, 1997
CMS STOCK BROKERAGE, INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE RAMON R. BUENAVENTURA in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 154, Pasig City, ATTY. GRACE BELVIS and ALBERTO VALINO, Ex-Officio Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff respectively of the RTC, Pasig City and CAROLINA INDUSTRIES, INC., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc., as judgment debtor, sought to redeem two parcels of land sold on execution nine years earlier. The properties were originally owned by Rosario Sandejas, who had mortgaged them. The second mortgage was foreclosed, and the properties were sold at public auction to Sison, Luz & Jalbuena (now CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc.) on May 10, 1971. The first mortgage was later foreclosed, and the properties were also sold to CMS on February 2, 1973. On March 1, 1982, the properties were levied on execution. Rosario Sandejas filed a third-party claim on June 2, 1982, alleging she had redeemed the properties from CMS on June 22, 1974, by paying with jewelry. She also instituted Civil Case No. 1508 for quieting of ownership on April 22, 1983. At the public auction on December 1, 1983, the properties were sold to respondent Carolina Industries, Inc. as the highest bidder. On December 12, 1983, the Deputy Sheriff issued an Amended Certificate of Sale containing a notation that the sale was “subject to the result and effect of Civil Case No. 1508.” This was registered on December 16, 1983. The Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale was issued on December 18, 1984. Title was consolidated in Carolina Industries’ name on April 16, 1986. On October 16, 1991, the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 101351 declared petitioner CMS as the real owner of the properties, not Rosario Sandejas. On December 7, 1992, petitioner tendered the redemption money to the Deputy Sheriff, who refused to execute a deed of redemption. The Regional Trial Court ruled against petitioner, stating the right of redemption had expired. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s subsequent petition. Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not petitioner could have effected the redemption of the subject property within the 12-month period provided under the Rules.
2. Whether or not the 12-month period of redemption was interrupted by Civil Case No. 1508 entitled, “Rosario Sandejas vs. Carolina Industries, Inc. et al.”

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. On the first issue, the Court ruled that petitioner could not have redeemed the property within the 12-month period because it was not in possession of the property. The right of redemption under Section 30, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is personal to the judgment debtor and can be exercised only by one who has actual or constructive possession of the property. Petitioner was not in possession; Rosario Sandejas was. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the 12-month redemption period was not interrupted by the pendency of Civil Case No. 1508. The action was filed by a third party (Sandejas) against the judgment creditor (Carolina Industries) and the Sheriff, not against the judgment debtor (CMS). The period of redemption is not suspended by the mere institution of an action to annul an execution sale, especially when the judgment debtor is not a party to that action. The notation in the Amended Certificate of Sale making it subject to the outcome of Civil Case No. 1508 was a resolutory condition for the benefit of the third-party claimant, Sandejas. Since the Supreme Court later ruled against Sandejas in G.R. No. 101351, the condition was never fulfilled and became functus oficio. It could not extend the redemption period for petitioner, who was not privy to the condition. The Court found no factual or legal basis to apply liberal rulings on redemption and applied Sections 29 and 30 of Rule 39 strictly.