G.R. No. 65236 October 12, 1989
MARIA V. DE CASIMIRO, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. MARCELINO N. SAYO, HON. ALFREDO N. GORGONIO, EXOFICIO SHERIFF RODRIGO N. SAURE, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, and ELISEO PAMBID, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Maria V. de Casimiro mortgaged her land to Traders Royal Bank to secure loans obtained by her son, Eduardo Casimiro. Upon default, the bank foreclosed the mortgages extrajudicially and purchased the property at auction. The certificates of sale were registered, setting the redemption deadline for one instrument on January 11, 1981. Separately, private respondent Eliseo Pambid obtained a money judgment against Eduardo Casimiro in Civil Case No. C-7669. An alias writ of execution authorized the levy on Eduardo’s rights, specifically his “rights as redemptioner” in the mortgaged property. A sheriff’s certificate of sale was issued to Pambid on January 6, 1981, conveying Eduardo’s interest.
On January 8, 1981, Pambid redeemed the property from the bank after Eduardo, when contacted by the bank, stated he would not redeem. Neither Eduardo nor Maria Casimiro redeemed the property before the January 11 deadline. Pambid consolidated ownership and obtained a new title. Subsequently, Maria Casimiro filed a complaint for reconveyance, arguing the levy on Eduardo’s right of redemption was illegal as she was the owner and was not a party to Pambid’s case against her son.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the redemption of the foreclosed property by respondent Eliseo Pambid, as a judgment creditor of the debtor-mortgagor Eduardo Casimiro, was valid, thereby precluding petitioner Maria Casimiro’s action for reconveyance.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Pambid’s redemption and denied the petition. The legal logic centers on the statutory right of redemption under Act No. 3135. Section 6 explicitly grants the right of redemption to “the debtor, his successors in interest or any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of said debtor.” Eduardo Casimiro was the debtor-mortgagor, as the loans secured by the mortgage were for his benefit, albeit with his mother’s consent as owner. Consequently, the right of redemption primarily pertained to him as the debtor.
As a judgment creditor of Eduardo, Pambid was expressly authorized by law to exercise the right of redemption. His levy upon Eduardo’s right of redemption pursuant to the writ of execution was proper. Eduardo’s waiver, manifested by his negative response to the bank’s inquiry, was valid and effective. The petitioner, as the mortgagor-owner but not the debtor, could not claim a superior right of redemption over the judgment creditor under the law. Her argument that she could have redeemed is unavailing as she never tendered the redemption price to the bank before the expiration of the period. Her action for reconveyance, filed months after the redemption period lapsed and without a tender of payment, was correctly dismissed. The Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that certiorari was an improper remedy and that Pambid’s redemption was lawful.