G.R. No. 48004. June 27, 1941.
CARLOS DORONILLA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. DOLORES VASQUEZ DE ARROYO and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ILOILO, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

In a prior case (Civil Case No. 9031), Dolores Vasquez de Arroyo obtained a judgment for alimony against her husband, Mariano B. Arroyo. Due to non-payment, the provincial sheriff of Iloilo levied on and sold at public auction to Dolores a parcel of land owned by Mariano on July 27, 1935. Carlos Doronilla filed a third-party claim, but the sale proceeded after Dolores posted a bond. Doronilla then filed Civil Case No. 10269, seeking to annul the auction sale and to have himself declared the sole owner of the property based on alleged prior sales from Mariano (June 10, 1933, and February 11, 1935). The trial court and the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 414) declared those prior transfers null and void as fraudulent, affirming the validity of the levy and sale. The Court of Appeals found the sale to Doronilla was executed by Mariano in fraud of creditors, as it occurred after the alimony judgment, was not registered until two years later, and Doronilla appeared to have collaborated in hiding the transaction to help Mariano defraud Dolores. After losing that case, Doronilla attempted to redeem the property from the sheriff on April 12, 1937, by depositing the purchase price plus interest. Redemption was refused as the statutory 12-month period had expired. Doronilla then filed the present case (Civil Case No. 10874) to annul the sheriff’s final deed of sale to Dolores and to compel redemption.

ISSUE

Whether Carlos Doronilla should be allowed to redeem the property sold at execution sale, despite the expiration of the statutory redemption period, based on equitable considerations.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on Doronilla’s right to redeem because the tender of redemption was made beyond the 12-month period prescribed by Section 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While courts may, in certain equitable circumstances, allow redemption even after the statutory period, such relief is not warranted here. The Court examined the equities of the case and found that Doronilla did not come to court with clean hands. The prior Court of Appeals decision established that the conveyances Doronilla relied upon were fraudulent, intended to defeat Dolores’s alimony judgment, and that Doronilla knowingly collaborated in this fraud. This was evidenced by the delayed registration of the sale, Doronilla’s subsequent foreclosure action (Civil Case No. 10199) where he failed to include Dolores as a party despite knowing of her interest, and his later purchase of Mariano’s “right of redemption” for a nominal sum despite claiming to already be the absolute owner. Given Doronilla’s unclean hands and his role in the fraudulent scheme to defeat a creditor’s rights, the case does not present the equitable considerations necessary to justify extending the redemption period. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed in its entirety.