G.R. No. L-8147; October 26, 1914
G. URRUTIA AND CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs. AMALIA MORENO and LEON REYES, sheriff of Ambos Camarines, defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
Mendezona & Co. obtained a judgment against Mariano Moreno (principal) and his sureties, including Amalia Moreno. Mendezona & Co. later assigned this judgment to G. Urrutia & Co. Under an execution on this judgment, the sheriff sold several parcels of land belonging to Mariano Moreno to Mendezona & Co. G. Urrutia & Co., holding a separate and later judgment against Mariano Moreno, caused an annotation of its execution to be registered on the same properties, specifically noting its intent to levy upon Mariano Moreno’s right of redemption. Amalia Moreno, as a surety who had been compelled to contribute to the satisfaction of the Mendezona judgment, paid the redemption price to the sheriff within the legal period, claiming she was subrogated to the rights of Mendezona & Co. (and thus G. Urrutia & Co. as assignee) and therefore entitled to redeem the properties. G. Urrutia & Co. refused to recognize this redemption, leading to this action.

ISSUE:
Whether a surety, against whom a judgment was obtained jointly with the principal debtor, and who has contributed to its payment, is entitled to redeem the real property of the principal debtor that was sold at an execution sale based on that judgment.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that Amalia Moreno had no right to redeem the properties of her principal, Mariano Moreno.
The right of redemption under Section 464 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly statutory and may only be exercised by: (1) the judgment debtor or his successor in interest; or (2) a redemptioner (a creditor having a lien by attachment, judgment, or mortgage on the property sold, subsequent to the lien under which the property was sold).
1. Amalia Moreno is not the judgment debtor or his successor in interest. The right of redemption is personal to the debtor. Subrogation of the surety to the rights of the creditor upon payment does not place the surety in the shoes of the debtor. Allowing the surety to redeem would effectively deprive the judgment debtor of his statutory right.
2. Amalia Moreno is not a redemptioner. While a surety who pays the judgment is subrogated to the rights of the creditor in that judgment, the lien of that judgment remains the same as to its date and priority. The statute requires the redemptioner’s lien to be subsequent to the lien under which the sale was made. Since the surety steps into the shoes of the original judgment creditor, her lien is identical and concurrent, not subsequent. Therefore, she does not qualify as a redemptioner.
The Court distinguished the case from Somes vs. Molina, noting that the issue there involved different equitable considerations regarding subrogation, not the statutory right of redemption.
The Court clarified that its ruling did not affect Amalia Moreno’s right to redeem her own properties if they were sold under execution and her right of redemption still existed.