Anda di halaman 1dari 2

3. Rodolfo General vs.

Leoncio Barrameda
[GR. No. L-29906; January 30, 1976]

Recit-Ready:

Facts:

 Plaintiff seeks to redeem the land formerly embraced by Transfer Certificate


Title (TCT) No. 1418, containing an area of 59 hectares in Minabalac
Camarines Sur, and to annul all contracts affecting the property between the
Development Bank of the Philippines and Rodolfo General.

 The land in dispute was mortgaged by plaintiff (General) to DBP for P22,000.
For failure to pay, the mortgagee (DBP) foreclosed the property.

 On April 23, 1962, provincial sheriff conducted auction sale in which the
highest bidder, the said mortgagee, bought the mortgaged property for P7,
271.22

 On September 2, 1963, the registration of the sale and affidavit wherein TCT
No. 1418 in the name of plaintiff was canceled and TCT No. 5003 was issued
to the DBP.

 On Sept 3, 1963 defendants General and Gontang purchased land from DBP.
Their sale was annotated in TCT 5003 on Nov. 26. 1963 only.

 On Nov. 20 -1963 plaintiff offered to redeem the land. When DBP refused, then
planitiff filed suit. The original complaint was filed on Nov. 20, 1963 while on
August 12, 1964, plaintiff deposited with the clerk of court the sum of
P7,271.22 representing the purchase price of the land.

 In the trial court, the judge asserted that the one-year period of redemption
began to run on april 23, 1962, when the sale at public auction was held, and
ended on April 24, 1963 and the deposit of redemption price on August 12,
1964 were made beyond the redemption period and that defendants Rodolfo
General and Carmen Gontang were legitimate purchasers.

 In the appellate court, the appealed judgment was reversed and the other
one entered declaring 1. Null and void the sale executed on September 3,
1963, by defendant DBP to Gontang and General 2. TCT 5003 cancelled and 3.
Mortaged property redeemed and ordering the clerk of court to deliver to
General and Gontang and the Register of Deeds to issue a new transfer
certificate of title in the name of plaintiff in lieu of TCT 5003 upon payment of
fees.

Issue:

1) WON the interpretation of Section 31 of the Commonwealth Act 459 which


states that the mortgager has the right to redeem real property upon full or
partial payment within one year from the date of the auction , shall start
from the date of the “Auction Sale” or the date of the registration of “Sale’ in
the register of deeds?

- Start from the registration of sale

Held/Ratio: No longer necessary to determine WON the petitioners were purchasers


in good faith of the land involved since Barrameda redeemed the mortgaged
property within the legal period of redemption and, consequently the sale of the
property executed on Sept. 3, 1963, by the Development Bank of the Philippines in
favor of the petitioners is null and void.

1) The court was of the view that a correct solution to the foregoing issue
must entail not merely trying to determine the meaning of the words
“auction sale" and "sale" in different legislative enactments, but, more
importantly, a determination of the legislative intent which is quite a task to
achieve as it depends more on a determination of the purpose and objective
of the law in giving mortgagors a period of redemption of their foreclosed
properties.

2) The court adhered to Salazar v. Meneses, where the period of redemption


was held as started on the date when the certificate of sale issued was
registered. The deed of sale does not take effect until it is registered.

3) They found no compelling reason to deviate from the ruling and not apply
the same to the present case. Because, to the court, the important issue
was whether “auction sale” shall be considered in its ordinary meaning or in
the same meaning of “sale“ used in the texts of Sec 26 of Rules of Court and
Act 2938 (PNB Charter) and Sec 30 And Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. To
them these words used interchangeably refer to one thing and that is the
public auction sale required by law in the disposition of properties
foreclosed or levied upon. This view was contrary to the petitioners main
contention that there was a great deal of difference in legislative intent in
the two words.