G.R. No. L-24507 April 30, 1969
Arsenio Reyes, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Reynaldo B. Chavoso, et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On November 27, 1961, the Sheriff of Quezon City sold at public auction a subdivision lot in Diliman, Quezon City, which was mortgaged by spouses Reynaldo B. and Manolita C. Chavoso to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Arsenio Reyes was the highest bidder and a corresponding certificate of sale was issued to him on December 2, 1961. On November 26, 1962, without the knowledge of Reyes, the Chavoso spouses paid P16,240.00 to the Sheriff, who issued a “Certificate of Redemption” on the same day. This certificate was annotated on the back of the original certificate of title. On March 12, 1963, Reyes filed an action for “Recovery of Property” in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against the Chavoso spouses, GSIS, the Register of Deeds, and the Sheriff. He alleged the Sheriff illegally accepted the redemption price because Reyes had not unlawfully refused to accept it and because the amount was short of assessment fees, taxes, documentary stamps, and government commission. The Chavoso spouses filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint stated no cause of action and the redemption price had been fully and legally paid. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case against the Chavoso spouses. Upon learning of this dismissal, GSIS also moved for dismissal, which the court granted. Reyes appealed both orders of dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint filed by the plaintiff-appellant states a cause of action against the defendants-appellees, in light of the alleged redemption made by the Chavoso spouses.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of dismissal. The Court held that on the face of the complaint, a valid redemption had been made by the Chavoso spouses within the one-year period prescribed by law (the auction sale was on November 27, 1961, and redemption was on November 23, 1962). The Court ruled that the Sheriff could lawfully accept the redemption money under Section 31, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which allows payment to be made “to the purchaser or redemptioner, or for him to the officer who made the sale.” The Court cited Javellana vs. Mirasol and Nuñez and Basco vs. Gonzalez, which held it unnecessary for the redemptioner to seek out the purchaser and that payment could be made to the sheriff. Furthermore, the Court found that the plaintiff-appellant’s complaint about the redemption price being short of additional assessments, taxes, and commissions was without merit. Under Section 27, Rule 39, a redemptioner must give written notice to the officer who made the sale if any assessments or taxes are paid; if such notice is not filed, the property may be redeemed without paying them. The complaint contained no allegation that such notice was given by Reyes to the Sheriff. Therefore, the Sheriff was not obligated to include those amounts, and the redemption was valid. Since a valid redemption extinguished the plaintiff’s right to the property, the complaint stated no cause of action against the Chavoso spouses or the GSIS.