G.R. No. L-26538 March 21, 1968
MELECIO ROSARIO and ROMEO C. RAMIREZ, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. TAYUG RURAL BANK, INC., ET AL., defendants, TAYUG RURAL BANK, INC., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Melecio Rosario mortgaged his land to Tayug Rural Bank to secure a loan of P440 by Romeo C. Ramirez. After partial payments, an unpaid balance of P170 remained. Due to non-payment, the bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. The provincial sheriff sold the land at public auction to the bank on July 21, 1961, and issued the certificate of sale on the same day. However, this certificate was recorded in the Registry of Deeds only on November 16, 1962. On November 21, 1962, the bank sold the land to Nenita Vergara. On August 22, 1962, Ramirez deposited P100 with the bank for redemption. On November 7, 1963, he offered to redeem the property by tendering the balance, but the bank refused, contending the one-year redemption period started on July 21, 1961, and had lapsed. Rosario and Ramirez sued to compel redemption.

ISSUE

Whether the period for redemption of property sold at extrajudicial foreclosure under Act 3135 is reckoned from the date of the auction sale (July 21, 1961) or from the date of registration of the certificate of sale in the Registry of Deeds (November 16, 1962).

RULING

The redemption period is reckoned from the date of registration of the certificate of sale. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, ordering the defendants to allow redemption upon payment of the auction price plus 1% interest per month from the sale date until redemption. The Court, citing Reyes vs. Noblejas, held that for registered land under the Torrens system, Section 6 of Act 3135 must be read together with Section 27, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court and Section 50 of the Land Registration Act (Act 496). Registration of the sheriff’s certificate of sale is mandatory, and the act of registration is the operative act to convey and affect the land. The date of sale mentioned in Act 3135 is construed to mean the date of registration of the certificate of sale. The Court rejected the bank’s argument that actual notice between parties suffices, emphasizing that registration protects not only the immediate parties but also possible redemptioners like successors in interest or subsequent lienholders. The tender of payment, though initially for the auction price only, was made in good faith and within the redemption period computed from registration; thus, redemption was allowed upon payment of the correct amount (purchase price plus interest).