G.R. No. L-27755; October 4, 1969
Arsenio Reyes, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Leonardo Manas, Vicente Roxas, Brigida Roxas Vda. de Gonzalvez and Jose San Agustin, in his official capacity as City Sheriff of Manila, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff Arsenio Reyes purchased a property at a public auction sale on April 19, 1965, following the extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage executed by defendants Leonardo Manas, Vicente Roxas, and Brigida Roxas Vda. de Gonzalvez in favor of Monte de Piedad and Savings Bank. The Sheriff issued a certificate of sale to Reyes on April 29, 1965, which was registered on the same date. On April 28, 1966, defendant Manas deposited with defendant Sheriff Jose San Agustin the sum of P8,803.20 as redemption price, and the Sheriff issued a certificate of redemption on May 2, 1966. Reyes filed a complaint alleging the redemption was invalid because: (1) the redemption price was insufficient as it did not include certain expenses and charges; (2) the Sheriff acted without authority in accepting the price and issuing the certificate; and (3) the defendants had already forfeited their rights to the property for failing to redeem it from a prior execution sale to a certain Leonor Espino. The defendants’ answer raised affirmative defenses, including that Reyes had no legal capacity to sue and the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaint on these grounds, as well as on the ground of pendency of another action.

ISSUE

1. Whether the complaint states a cause of action.
2. Whether the decision in a prior case is res judicata to the present case.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, holding that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The Court ruled that the one-year period of redemption for the extrajudicial foreclosure sale should be computed from the date of registration of the certificate of sale (April 29, 1965), not from the date of the auction sale (April 19, 1965). Since the redemption was made on April 28, 1966, which was within one year from the date of registration, it was timely. The Court cited Salazar v. Meneses and other precedents, holding that the rule computing the redemption period from the date of registration applies to extrajudicial foreclosure sales of registered land. The appellant’s argument that this rule should not apply where no third party is involved was rejected, as the rule is for the benefit of the redemptioner (the owner). Consequently, the complaint, which was based on the premise that the redemption was made outside the redemption period, did not state a cause of action. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the other grounds for dismissal, including the issue of res judicata.