G.R. No. L-16221. April 29, 1961. RODOLFO GERONIMO, plaintiff, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF CABA, LA UNION, defendant-appellee. FELIPE MANGASER, purchaser-petitioner-appellant.
FACTS

In Civil Case No. 1002, a parcel of land owned by the Municipality of Caba, La Union, was sold at public auction on July 16, 1957, to Dr. Felipe Mangaser to satisfy a judgment. The Municipality had one year to redeem the property. On the last day of the redemption period, July 16, 1958, Municipal Mayor Manuel Fonbuena redeemed the property by depositing the redemption price with the provincial sheriff, who issued a corresponding certificate of redemption. Subsequently, Mangaser filed a petition to compel the sheriff to execute a final deed of sale in his favor, arguing the redemption was invalid.
Mangaser contended the redemption was void because Mayor Fonbuena lacked prior authorization from the municipal council. He further alleged the redemption money came not from municipal funds but from the Parents-Teachers Association (PTA) of Caba, of which the Mayor was president. The municipal council later passed a resolution declaring the Mayor had acted in excess of his authority, noting the municipality lacked funds for redemption.

ISSUE

Was the redemption of the property by the Municipal Mayor valid despite the lack of prior council authorization and the use of funds from a private association?

RULING

Yes, the redemption was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order denying Mangaser’s petition. The legal logic centers on the Mayor’s official duty and capacity, and the source of the redemption money being immaterial to the validity of the act itself.
First, the Court held that Mayor Fonbuena acted in his official capacity as chief executive to protect municipal property. As the property belonged to the municipality, it was his bounden duty to take necessary steps to prevent its loss, including effecting redemption within the statutory period. The lack of a prior council resolution did not invalidate the redemption, as the act was within the scope of his executive function to safeguard municipal interests.
Second, the origin of the redemption money did not taint the transaction. The fact that the PTA lent the money as an accommodation to the municipality was permissible. The Court reasoned that the money could have come from any source—a philanthropist, a civic organization, or a private lender—without affecting the redemption’s validity, as the purpose was to restore property to the municipality. Any question regarding the propriety of obtaining the funds was a separate matter between the municipality and the PTA, not a ground to nullify the redemption itself. The redemption, having been made by the proper official within the legal period and in due form, was upheld.