SALAZAR vs.

MENESES
FACTS:

Antonio Dizon mortgaged the same in favor of Flor de Lis Meneses to secure the payment of a loan of
P6,000.00. When this amount was increased to P7, 000.00, he executed a supplementary mortgage on the
same property.

As the mortgagor failed to pay the principal obligation upon maturity, the mortgagee
foreclosed the mortgage extrajudicially and the property was sold by the Sheriff of
Manila at public auction on October 29, 1954 to Flor de Lis Meneses herself, the
highest bidder. The corresponding certificate of sale executed by the Sheriff of Manila in her favor
specifically fixed the one-year period of redemption from October 29, 1954 to October 30, 1955, but it was

registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of Manila only on May 26, 1956, on
August 23, 1955 Antonio Dizon died intestate, on October 31 of the same year the spouses Ernesto
Salazar and Soledad G. de Salazar, claiming, to be his creditors
On October 1, 1956, the Salazar spouses commenced
Instance of Manila against Flor de Lis Meneses and

Civil Case No. 30767 in the Court of First

her husband, Avelino Sebastian, the
heirs of the Deceased Antonio Dizon and the Philippine Trust Co., as administrator of
his estate, to annul the deed of sale executed by Flor de Lis Meneses in her favor and to compel her to
permit them to redeem the mortgaged property.

ISSUE:
WON the lower court erred in not holding that the period of redemption in this case, as far as appellants are
concerned, started only on May 26, 1956, the date when the certificate of sale issued by the sheriff was
registered.
In Garcia v. Ocampo G.R. No. L-13029, June 30, 1959, we held that the twelve months period of redemption

"begins to run not from the date of the

sale, but from the time of registration of the sale in the office of the register
of deeds". The entry or annotation made on the back of the certificate of title of the property in question on
provided for in Sec. 26, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court

July 18, 1959 (supra) was in accordance with this ruling when it provided that the execution sale, was

"subject to redemption within one (1) year from registration hereof."

PETITION GRANTED.

DBP vs. West Negros

Facts:
Bacolod Medical Center (BMC) obtained a loan for building and operating a hospital from petitioner
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) worth P2,400,000.00. The loan was secured by a mortgage on the
two (2) parcels of land.
For failure of BMC to pay the loan, DBP instituted an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage under Act 3135
(1924). The mortgaged properties were sold at public auction where DBP emerged as the highest and only
bidder for the sum of P4, 090,117.36. As of the date of the public auction, the outstanding loan balance of BMC
was P32, 526,133.62. During the process of paying for the twenty percent (20%) installment, BMC and
respondent West Negros College executed a "Deed of Assignment" which assigned to the latter the interests of
BMC in the properties foreclosed by petitioner DBP and vested upon the assignee the right to redeem them.
DBP objected to the issuance of the certificate of redemption and argued that the redemption price must be
based on the charter of the DBP requiring payment of the amount owed as of the date

of the foreclosure sale with interest on the total indebtedness at the rate agreed
upon in the obligation. DBP also refused to hand over the transfer certificates of title of the foreclosed
properties.

the right of redemption may be exercised only by paying to "the Bank all the amount he owed
the latter on the date of the sale, with interest on the total indebtedness at the rate agreed
upon in the obligation from said date, unless the bidder has taken material possession of the
property or unless this had been delivered to him, in which case the proceeds of the property
shall compensate the interest."12 This rule applies whether the foreclosed property is sold to the DBP or
another person at the public auction, provided of course that the property was mortgaged to DBP.
"in case of redemption, [to] return to the bidder the amount it received from him as a result of the auction sale
with the corresponding interest paid by the debtor."14

Section 31 of CA 459 creating the Agricultural and Industrial Bank explicitly set the
redemption price at the total indebtedness plus contractual interest as of the date of
the auction sale.

"Section 31 of Commonwealth Act No. 459, and not Section 26, Rule 39, of
the Rules of Court, is applicable in case of redemption of real estate
mortgaged to the DBP to secure a loan. As such, the redemption price to be
paid by the mortgagor or debtor to the DBP is 'all the amount he owes the
latter on the date of the sale, with interest on the total indebtedness at the
rate agreed upon, and not merely the amount paid for by the purchaser at
the public auction, pursuant to Section 26, Rule 39, of the Rules of
Court." Clearly the redemption of properties mortgaged with the Development Bank of
22

the Philippines and foreclosed either judicially or extrajudicially is governed by special

laws which provide for the payment of all the amounts owed by the debtor.

SANCHEZ vs. COMELEC (Prospective application)

This is a petition for prohibition and injunction, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order, seeking to enjoin respondent Commission on Elections (hereinafter COMELEC) and the
Election Registrar of Butuan City, from implementing Minute Resolution No. 90-0590 adopted by the
COMELEC on June 27, 1990, directing the holding of recall proceedings against petitioners herein on
August 11, 18 and 25, 1990.