G.R. No. 26844, September 27, 1927
ISABEL FLORES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TRINIDAD LIM, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Isabel Flores’s land was sold at a sheriff’s execution sale to Trinidad Lim. Within the one-year redemption period, Flores formally demanded an accounting of the fruits and profits derived from the land by Lim, as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, to have the amount credited against the redemption price. When Lim refused to render an account, Flores filed an action to redeem. The trial court granted Flores the right to redeem but ordered her to pay, in addition to the purchase price and taxes, the sum of P15,000 as the value of improvements made by Lim on the land. It also relieved Lim from rendering an accounting of fruits. Flores appealed, contesting the order to pay for improvements and the denial of an accounting.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the defendant-purchaser at an execution sale is entitled to reimbursement for improvements made on the property during the redemption period.
2. Whether the defendant-purchaser is obligated to account for and credit the fruits and profits derived from the property during the redemption period against the redemption price.

RULING

1. On reimbursement for improvements: NO. The purchaser at an execution sale is not entitled to reimbursement for improvements made during the redemption period. The Court, through Justice Johns, held that the right of redemption is governed strictly by Section 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which only requires the redemptioner to pay the purchase price, interest, and taxes paid by the purchaser. It does not include the value of improvements. The Civil Code provisions on reimbursement do not apply to judicial redemptions under the Code of Civil Procedure. To allow such reimbursement would impair and encumber the statutory right of redemption. The trial court’s order for Flores to pay P15,000 for improvements was reversed.

2. On the accounting of fruits and profits: YES. The purchaser is obligated to account for and credit the fruits and profits received from the property during the redemption period. The Court held that during the redemption period, the purchaser is considered a possessor in *good faith* and is entitled to the fruits. However, Section 469 of the Code of Civil Procedure explicitly grants the judgment debtor the right to demand an accounting of such fruits and profits. The amount received by the purchaser must be deducted from the sum the redemptioner is required to pay. The trial court erred in relieving Lim from this obligation. The case was remanded for the defendant to render a proper accounting.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the lower court was modified. The plaintiff was granted the right to redeem upon payment of the amounts specified in Section 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure (purchase price, interest, and taxes), less the value of the fruits and profits for which the defendant must render an account. The order for the plaintiff to pay P15,000 for improvements was set aside. Costs were taxed against the appellee.

SEPARATE OPINION (Justice Villamor):
Justice Villamor concurred in the result but expressed a different view on possession. He opined that the purchaser at an execution sale is entitled to possession during the redemption period. Consequently, he believed the purchaser had the right to be reimbursed for useful expenditures that increased the land’s value, based on principles of equity and unjust enrichment, even if not required by the Code of Civil Procedure. However, this view did not prevail.