Redemption Rights Upholding Timely Redemption IN Foreclosure Cases

The right of redemption is a crucial protection for property owners who lose their real property through foreclosure. In Lim v. Tambago (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1498, September 17, 2001), the Supreme Court clarified how this right operates in practice, particularly when the redemption is made on the very last day of the prescribed period. The case also serves as a reminder that court officials who faithfully follow the rules are not liable for administrative offenses simply because a losing bidder is disappointed with the outcome.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from an extrajudicial foreclosure sale conducted by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). On November 3, 1997, Vicente P. Lim, Sr. emerged as the highest bidder for three parcels of land owned by spouses Porderio and Liza Orbiso, purchasing them for P1,470,000.00. The following day, the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff issued a Certificate of Sale, which was registered with the Register of Deeds on November 6, 1997.

Under the law, the mortgagors had one year from the registration of the Certificate of Sale to redeem the property. That period was set to expire on November 6, 1998.

The Attempt to Redeem

On October 30, 1998, the sheriff notified Lim that the Orbisos intended to redeem the foreclosed property on November 3, 1998. However, when that date arrived, the mortgagors did not appear. Lim then requested the sheriff to issue a certificate of final sale, but the sheriff refused, correctly noting that the redemption period had not yet expired.

On November 5, 1998, Lim was informed that the Orbisos were at the sheriff's office to redeem the property. The sheriff computed the redemption price at P1,650,503.00, inclusive of interest and taxes.

On November 6, 1998—the last day of the redemption period—the Orbisos filed a notice of redemption with the sheriff's office and sent a copy to Lim by registered mail. They also filed an ex-parte motion to pay and deposit the redemption amount, which the respondent judge granted. The sheriff accepted the redemption money in cash and issued a Certificate of Redemption.

The Complaint Against Court Officials

Lim filed administrative complaints against the sheriff and the judge, alleging grave abuse of authority, misconduct, and denial of due process. He argued that the Orbisos should be deemed to have waived their right to redeem because they failed to appear on November 3, 1998, the date they had initially indicated. He also questioned the judge's orders, claiming they were issued without giving him an opportunity to oppose the redemption.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaints for lack of merit. Citing Rule 39, Section 28 of the Revised Rules of Court, the Court emphasized that a judgment obligor or redemptioner may redeem the property at any time within one year from the date of registration of the certificate of sale.

Since the Certificate of Sale was registered on November 6, 1997, the one-year redemption period ended on November 6, 1998. The redemption made by the Orbisos on that date was therefore well within the period prescribed by the Rules.

The Court also rejected Lim's argument that the Orbisos waived their right to redeem by not appearing on November 3, 1998. The law does not require redemption to be made on any particular day within the one-year period; it simply prescribes the outer limit. A redemption made on the last day is as valid as one made on the first.

Finally, the Court found no irregularity in the judge's issuance of the orders. The ex-parte nature of the motion was not improper, and the sheriff's actions were in faithful compliance with the court's directives.

Practical Takeaways

• The one-year redemption period is counted from registration, not from the auction date. In extrajudicial foreclosures, the period runs from the date the Certificate of Sale is registered with the Register of Deeds.
• Redemption can be made on the last day. As long as the redemption is made within the one-year period, it is valid—even if made on the final day and even if the mortgagor had earlier indicated a different date.
• Failure to appear on an earlier date does not waive the right to redeem. The right of redemption is a statutory right that is not lost merely because the mortgagor missed a self-imposed deadline.
• Court officials who follow the rules are protected. Sheriffs and judges who act in accordance with the Rules of Court and court orders are not liable for administrative offenses, even if their actions frustrate a purchaser's expectations.
• Due process in redemption proceedings is limited. An ex-parte motion for redemption may be acted upon without prior notice to the purchaser, provided the redemption is made within the statutory period.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.