134 Limpin v IAC

G.R. No. 70987 September 29, 1988

TOPIC
: Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
PONENTE
: Narvasa,
J.
FACTS:
1. 1973:
Two lots
(TCTs Nos. 92836 and 92837)
were mortgaged
(
plus 2 other lots, 4 in all
) in 1973
to private respondentPonce
by
their former owners, the
Spouses
Jose and Marcelina
Aquino
.2. 1978: The said 2 lots were
sold
by the Aquino spouses to
Butuan Bay Wood Export Corporation
.3. Petitioner Limpin obtained a money judgment in 1979 against the corporation
and to satisfy the judgment, the twolots were levied on and sold at public auction
in 1980; Limpin was the highest bidder.
Limpin later sold the lots to his co-petitioner, Sarmiento
.4.
Before the levy was made
on the two lots in execution of the judgment against the corporation,
Ponce
had
initiated judicial proceedings for the foreclosure of the mortgage over said
two (2) lots

(together with the 2 others mortgaged tohim.5. Judgment was rendered in his
favor and became final; and at the ensuing foreclosure sale, the lots were acquired
byPonce himself as highest bidder.6. Ponce then moved for confirmation of the
foreclosure sale, but
the Court
confirmed the sale of only two lots,
refusing
to do so as regards the two which had been
subject of the execution sale in Limpin's favor
(those covered TCTs Nos.92836 and 92837).7.
Ponce instituted a special civil action in the Intermediate Appellate Court,
impleading Limpin and Sarmiento aindispensable parties respondents.
That Court rendered judgment in Ponce's favor; Limpin and Sarmiento appealed;
thisCourt denied their appeal.
8. SC affirmed appellate courts decision and ordered the t
rial Court "to confirm the sale (of the lots formerly covered byTCT Nos. 92836
and 92837) and issue a writ of possession to Ponce with respect to the aforesaid
lots,
subject to theequity of redemption
of Sarmiento.9.
Sarmiento
knew that he had the prerogative to exercise his equity of redemption but he
did not
try to
exercise
that
right before the confirmation of the foreclosure sale
by Judge Solano. Instead, he instituted no less than two (2) actionsin the RTC
attempting to relitigate precisely the same issues which this Court and the IAC
had already passed upon andresolved adversely to him. The cases were
dismissed.10. March 11, 1988: nine months or so after entry of the judgment
recognizing his equity of redemption as successor-in-interest of the original
mortgagors that
Sarmiento finally attempted to exercise his unforeclosed equity of redemption
.He filed a motion with the Court manifesting that he would exercise the right and
asked the Court to fix the redemptionprice. The Court opined that "this should be
the subject of the agreement between Ponce and Sarmiento.11. Sarmiento then
wrote to Ponce offering P2.6 million as redemption price for the two lots. Ponce

rejected the offersaid averred "that the period within which Sarmiento could have
exercised such right had lapsed. According to Ponce,from October 17, 1982, when
Sarmiento's predecessors-in-interest defaulted in their obligations over the
mortgagedproperties, up to June 17, 1987, when the trial court confirmed the
auction sale of those properties, Sarmiento could(and should) have exercised his
equity of redemption.
ISSUE:
WON the equity of redemption recognized in favor of petitioner Sarmiento still
subsists and may be exercised,more than a year after that judgment had become
final and executory.
HELD: No.
The equity of redemption lapsed and ceased to exist without having been properly
exercised. After such orderof confirmation of the foreclosure sale, no redemption
can be effected any longer.
RATIO
: 1. The
equity of redemption
is, to be sure,
different from
and should not be confused with the
right of