G.R. No. L-29441 May 31, 1973
PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF BULACAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARSENIO REYES and ROSARIO J. MARIANO, defendants, ARSENIO REYES, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan in an interpleader case. The Provincial Sheriff filed the action to resolve conflicting claims over a property purchased by Arsenio Reyes at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale. The mortgaged property, registered in the name of Rosario J. Mariano, was sold at public auction on October 28, 1965, with Reyes as the successful bidder for P2,670.00. Within the one-year redemption period, specifically within one month after the sale, Mariano deposited with the Provincial Sheriff the total amount of P2,706.70, representing the purchase price plus one percent interest. This deposit and the intent to redeem were communicated to Reyes.
Reyes refused to accept the redemption, contending the deposited amount was insufficient as it allegedly lacked reimbursement for assessment taxes, fees, stamps, and commission. He argued that redemption could not validly be made to the Sheriff in the absence of a showing that he, the purchaser, had unlawfully refused a tender of the redemption price. The trial court upheld Mariano’s redemption as valid under the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether defendant-mortgagor Rosario J. Mariano validly redeemed the foreclosed property by depositing the redemption price with the Provincial Sheriff, despite the purchaser’s refusal to accept it and his claim of insufficiency.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling the redemption was valid. The legal logic is anchored on Section 31, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which explicitly states that redemption payments “may be made to the purchaser or redemptioner or for him to the officer who made the sale.” The Court emphasized that no condition, such as the purchaser’s prior unlawful refusal, is imposed by the rule for payment to the officer. Payment to the Sheriff who conducted the sale is expressly authorized by law.
The Court found appellant’s arguments manifestly frivolous, noting they had been decisively resolved against him in previous cases, including Reyes vs. Chavoso (G.R. No. L-24507, April 30, 1969). In that case, the Court already held that a sheriff may lawfully accept redemption money without any prerequisite showing of the purchaser’s refusal. The Court admonished appellant for his persistent use of judicial process to delay the fulfillment of clear obligations, characterizing such tactics as prejudicial to the administration of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and triple costs were imposed against appellant Arsenio Reyes for prosecuting a frivolous appeal. The redemption by Mariano was upheld, and the Sheriff was ordered to execute the corresponding certificate of redemption.