G.R. No. L-11008; March 29, 1916
MARIANO REAL, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. CESAREO MALLARI, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant, Cesar Mallari, was the judgment debtor in an execution sale of his land. The sale took place on February 16, 1912. On February 14, 1913, Mallari voluntarily redeemed the property by paying the sheriff the full redemption amount, which included the purchase price, interest, taxes, and the balance due on the execution. This payment was made without any claim or deduction for the value of the use and occupation of the land by the assignee of the purchaser (the plaintiffs’ assignee) during the redemption period. The sheriff turned over the full payment to the plaintiffs’ assignee without objection from Mallari. Nearly two and a half months later, on April 30, 1913, Mallari made a written demand on the sheriff for the return of P336, which he claimed as the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the land from the date of sale to the date of redemption. He filed a motion to compel the sheriff to repay this amount almost two years after his demand, on February 4, 1915. The Court of First Instance of Manila denied his motion.

ISSUE:
Whether the sheriff can be compelled to return to the judgment debtor a sum representing the value of the use and occupation of the property sold under execution, after the debtor had voluntarily paid the full redemption price without asserting such a claim at the time of payment.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion, albeit on different grounds from the trial court. The Court held that the defendant’s voluntary payment of the full redemption price to the sheriff without any claim for the value of the use and occupation, coupled with the sheriff’s subsequent turnover of that payment to the rightful party without the defendant’s objection, relieved the sheriff of any further responsibility in the matter. The Court emphasized the lapse of nearly two and a half months before any claim was made and nearly two years before legal action was taken. The Court did not rule on whether the judgment debtor had a valid claim for the use and occupation, but held that if such a remedy existed, it was not against the sheriff under these circumstances. The judgment was affirmed with costs against the appellant.