G.R. No. 13151 ; September 24, 1918
E. A. ENAGE, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LA RAZON SOCIAL “VDA. E HIJOS DE F. ESCAÑO” ET. AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
The defendant partnership, “Vda. e Hijos de F. Escaño,” obtained a judgment against Jacinta Escaño. Upon execution, several parcels of her land were sold at public auction, with most purchased by the judgment creditor and others by third parties. The purchasers were placed in possession. Subsequently, some parcels were transferred to other parties. On June 11, 1915, Jacinta Escaño, for valuable consideration, assigned her right of redemption to the plaintiff, E. A. Enage. On September 11, 1915, the plaintiff notified all purchasers and their assigns in writing of his assignment and his desire to redeem the properties, offering to pay the purchase prices plus interest and charges. The purchasers refused. The plaintiff then demanded redemption from the sheriff and tendered the amounts due, but the sheriff also refused. The plaintiff subsequently estimated the net amount due (purchase price plus interest/costs minus rents and profits received by the possessors) and deposited this sum with the clerk of court on October 16, 1915, notifying all parties. Receiving no response, the plaintiff filed an action on October 22, 1915, to compel redemption. The defendants denied a proper tender was made and raised special defenses, including a claim that the partnership had purchased the right of redemption prior to the assignment to the plaintiffa claim not proven at trial. The trial court dismissed the action, holding that the plaintiff failed to comply with Section 469 of the Code of Civil Procedure by not first demanding a written statement of rents and profits from the possessors before filing suit.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiff, as assignee of the judgment debtor’s right of redemption, properly exercised that right and is entitled to redeem the properties sold at execution, despite not having first demanded a statement of rents and profits from the possessors under Section 469 of the Code of Civil Procedure before filing suit.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and permitted the plaintiff to redeem.
1. On Tender and Deposit: The plaintiff made a valid tender of the redemption amount to the purchasers and the sheriff. Once a valid tender is refused, it need not be repeated, nor is a deposit of the full amount required to preserve the right of redemption. The plaintiff’s deposit of his calculated net amount was sufficient under the circumstances.
2. On Procedure for Redemption: Section 466 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows payment to be made to the purchaser or to the officer who made the sale. The sheriff had a duty to accept the payment and execute a certificate of redemption upon the plaintiff’s demand.
3. On the Demand for Statement of Rents and Profits (Sec. 469): The trial court erred in dismissing the suit based on the plaintiff’s failure to first demand a written statement of rents and profits. The defendants’ refusal to allow redemption was absolute and based on other grounds (an alleged prior purchase of the right). Under these circumstances, demanding such a statement would have been a futile act. The law does not require a useless formality.
4. On Liberal Construction of Redemption Laws: Redemption laws are remedial and should be construed liberally to effectuate their purposeto allow the debtor’s property to pay as many liabilities as possible. A liberal construction is particularly warranted under the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. On Rights and Liabilities: The defendants, by their unwarranted refusal, became possessors in bad faith from the commencement of the action. The plaintiff is entitled to redeem upon payment of the difference between the purchase prices at the sheriff’s sale and the rents and profits received by the defendants as proven. Furthermore, the case is remanded for the trial court to determine the amounts for which defendants are liable as possessors in bad faith (under Article 445 of the Civil Code) from the filing of the complaint until possession is restored to the plaintiff.
6. On the Judgment Creditor’s Risk: The Court noted that if the judgment creditor (the partnership) fails to bid the reasonable value of the property at the execution sale, it assumes the risk of losing any surplus value through an assignment or exercise of the right of redemption by another party. This right is the debtor’s means of compelling a creditor to bid a fair price.