G.R. No. L-15947 April 30, 1965
JOSE F. APARRI, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SALVACION E. VDA. DE FERRO and LINO BAJAR, Sheriff of Masbate, respondents.

FACTS

On June 9, 1947, Jose F. Aparri mortgaged a piece of land to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). On July 9, 1953, a writ of preliminary attachment was issued against Aparri’s properties due to a criminal case for malversation. Aparri failed to pay his debt, and PNB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. The property was sold at public auction on January 28, 1955, to Salvacion E. Vda. de Ferro for P1,500. From this amount, P1,400 was paid to PNB, P18.60 to the sheriff for fees, and P477.40 was retained by the sheriff due to the pending criminal case and the writ of preliminary attachment. Within the one-year redemption period, Aparri tendered P1,265.32 to Ferro, who refused it. Aparri then paid this amount to the provincial sheriff. The sheriff refused to execute a certificate of redemption for Aparri or a final deed of sale for Ferro. Ferro filed a mandamus action in the Court of First Instance of Masbate, which ruled in her favor, ordering the sheriff to execute the final deed of sale and deliver possession, and ordering Aparri to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether Aparri validly exercised his right of redemption by tendering only P1,265.32 and directing Ferro to claim the balance of P477.40 from the sheriff, who retained it due to the preliminary attachment.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Under Section 30 of Rule 39 (which superseded the relevant sections of the Code of Civil Procedure cited in Act No. 3135 , as amended), to effect redemption, the judgment debtor must pay the purchaser the full redemption price within the period. The purchaser cannot be compelled to accept an amount less than the full sum required, nor can she be compelled to accept a tender where part of the money is held by a third party (the sheriff) and is subject to an adverse claim (by the Government due to the attachment). Aparri’s tender was deficient by P477.40. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the balance or residue from an extrajudicial foreclosure sale (the P477.40) should be applied to pay junior liens on the property, such as the lien by attachment acquired by the Government, following the rule in judicial foreclosure sales. Therefore, Aparri’s redemption attempt was invalid. The Court also noted that Ferro’s counter-assignment of error seeking additional damages could not be granted as she did not appeal the judgment.