G.R. No. L-9182; January 28, 1915
FRANCISCO PAPA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIANO MANALO, ET AL., defendant-appellants.

FACTS:
On January 24, 1911, the provincial sheriff of Cavite sold at public auction eight parcels of land belonging to the spouses Abdon Ambat and Isabel Bebe to satisfy a judgment debt. The properties were sold for P700. On March 10, 1911, the judgment debtors (Ambat and Bebe) sold their right of redemption over these properties to Francisco Papa for P125. On March 31, 1911, Papa exercised this right by depositing with the sheriff the redemption price of P700 plus P15.61 in interest. The judgment creditors, the Pio de Roda brothers, refused to accept this payment. Subsequently, at the instance of the Pio de Roda brothers and upon their filing of an indemnity bond, the sheriff (defendant Mariano Manalo) attached and sold Papa’s acquired right of redemption at public auction on December 28, 1911. The Pio de Roda brothers were the purchasers at this sale for P300. Francisco Papa filed an action to annul the sale of his right of redemption and to compel recognition of his valid redemption of the original properties.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the judgment debtors (Ambat and Bebe) enjoyed a preferred right to redeem their properties sold at execution sale.
2. Whether the judgment debtors could validly sell their right of redemption to a third party (Francisco Papa).

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the lower court’s decision in favor of Francisco Papa.

1. Yes, judgment debtors have a preferred right of redemption. Under Section 464 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment debtor (or successor in interest) is expressly granted the primary right to redeem property sold at an execution sale, ahead of any subsequent lien-holder or “redemptioner.”

The Court found no evidence to support the defendants’ claim that the sale of the right of redemption to Papa was fraudulent or fictitious. The instrument of sale showed payment was made, and Papa had duly deposited the full redemption price with the sheriff within the legal period. The judgment creditors’ refusal to accept the deposited funds did not invalidate the redemption.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellants failed to forward the complete evidence to the Supreme Court, making a full review impossible. In such a case, the findings of fact and law by the trial court are accepted.