G.R. No. 33852 , September 23, 1930
WILLIAM ANDERSON and MAMERTO DE MESA, petitioners, vs. HERMOGENES REYES, Judge of First Instance of Pampanga, and JOSE MARIA GUTIERREZ SAENZ, respondents.

FACTS

On May 15, 1929, petitioner William Anderson filed a foreclosure suit against respondent Jose Maria Gutierrez Saenz in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The court rendered judgment in Anderson’s favor, ordering payment within three months, with a provision for the sale of the mortgaged property in case of default. Gutierrez failed to pay, leading to a writ of execution and a public auction on March 24, 1930, where Anderson emerged as the highest bidder. The sheriff issued a certificate of sale the following day. On April 1, 1930, Anderson moved for confirmation of the sale. On the same day, Gutierrez offered to pay the full judgment amount. Before the sale was confirmed, Anderson transferred his rights to the property to his co-petitioner, Mamerto de Mesa. On June 17, 1930, the trial court, finding the auction price inadequate (though not unconscionably low) and considering Gutierrez’s offer to pay, granted Gutierrez an inextendible period of ten days to pay the judgment debt, costs, and fees, failing which the sale would be confirmed. Anderson and De Mesa filed this petition for certiorari, alleging that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting Gutierrez an opportunity to pay instead of confirming the sale.

ISSUE

Whether, after a foreclosure sale but before its confirmation by the court, the court may grant the judgment debtor an opportunity to pay the judgment debt and withhold confirmation of the sale.

RULING

No, the petition for certiorari is denied. The Supreme Court held that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction. The Court reiterated established doctrine that before the confirmation of a foreclosure sale, title does not vest in the purchaser (Raymundo vs. Sunico, 25 Phil. 365). Consequently, the court retains discretion over the confirmation. Following its precedents in Grimalt vs. Velazquez and Sy Quio (36 Phil. 936) and La Urbana vs. Balando, the Supreme Court ruled that after a sale and before its confirmation, the court may still grant the judgment debtor an opportunity to pay the execution debt. The fact that Anderson had already assigned his rights to De Mesa did not affect the court’s authority, as the sale itself was not yet effective without confirmation. Therefore, the trial court did not lack or exceed its jurisdiction in granting Gutierrez a period to redeem the property by paying the judgment.