G.R. No. L-24791; August 29, 1969
APOLONIA MIRANDA, REMEDIOS GUANZON, SOCORRO GUANZON, LEOPOLDO GUANZON, FILOTEA GUANZON, PAULINA GUANZON, and LIDUVINA GUANZON, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ARSENIO REYES, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellees, owners of a parcel of urban land in Malate, Manila, mortgaged it to the Republic Bank. Due to non-payment, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed. At the public sale on September 30, 1963, defendant-appellant Arsenio Reyes was the highest bidder for P16,415.00. Before the expiration of the one-year redemption period, on September 19, 1964, the plaintiffs, through counsel, sent a letter to the Republic Bank and defendant Reyes offering to redeem the property by tendering the purchase price of P16,415.00 plus 1% interest per month and any taxes and assessments paid, with the same interest rate. The letter stated that if they did not hear from the recipients within two days or if the tender was refused, they would consign the amount in court. Defendant Reyes received this letter on September 24, 1964, and on the same date sent a reply stating, “Your client is welcomed (sic) to effect the repurchase stated in your letter.” The plaintiffs received this reply on September 29, 1964. However, on September 28, 1964, before receiving the reply, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in court accompanied by a consignation of P18,373.86 (representing principal and interest for 11 months and 28 days), praying that the defendant be ordered to accept it as full satisfaction of the redemption price. The defendant answered with a counterclaim, seeking to be declared absolute owner and claiming rentals and damages. The facts were stipulated by the parties.

ISSUE

1. Whether the consignation by plaintiffs was properly made when the tender of payment was not refused but was willingly accepted by the defendant.
2. Whether the amount deposited in court was the sufficient and proper redemption price as provided by law.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the plaintiffs.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that the consignation was proper and timely. Although the defendant had accepted the tender in his letter of September 24, 1964, the plaintiffs did not receive this acceptance until September 29, 1964. In the meantime, the redemption period was about to expire. The plaintiffs acted prudently by filing the action and depositing the redemption money in court to avoid the expiration of their right to redeem. The defendant’s argument that there was no unjustified refusal to accept the tender was not tenable under the circumstances. The litigation was deemed needless, as the defendant could have simply withdrawn the deposited amount.
2. On the second issue, the Court held that the amount deposited was sufficient. The plaintiffs’ tender in their September 19, 1964 letter included the purchase price, 1% interest per month, and any taxes and assessments paid, with the same interest rate. The defendant’s reply of September 24, 1964, while accepting the offer, did not itemize any additional amounts he believed were due. The absence of such itemization meant the parties would still have had to determine the actual amounts due, which the court did without prejudice to the defendant. The trial court’s judgment, which ordered the plaintiffs to add P198.87 for sheriff’s fees, assessments, and documentary stamps with interest, was affirmed. Treble costs were awarded against the defendant-appellant.