Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Medida vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 98334 May 8, 1992
Facts:
Sps. Medida, alarmed of losing their right of redemption over lot 4731 of the Cebu City
Cadastre from Mr. Juan Gandioncho, purchaser of the aforesaid lot at the foreclosure sale
of the previous mortgage in favor of Cebu City Development Bank, went to Teotimo
Abellana, president of defendant Association, to obtain a loan of P30K.

Prior thereto, their son Teofredo Dolino filed a similar loan application for 25K with lot
No. 4731 offered as security for the 30K loan from defendant association.
o Subsequently, they executed a promissory note in favor of defendant
association. Both documents indicated that the principal obligation is for 30K
payable in one year with interest at 12% per annum.

When the loan became due and demandable without plaintiff paying the same, defendant
association caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage.

After the posting and publication requirements were complied with, the land was sold at
public auction to defendant association being the highest bidder. The certificate of sale
was issued and registered with the Register of Deeds of Cebu.
o No redemption having been effected by plaintiff, TCT was cancelled and a
new one was issued in the name of defendant association.
Private respondents filed the civil case in the court a quo for the annulment of the sale at
public auction conducted as well as the corresponding certificate of sale issued.
In their complaint, private respondents, as plaintiffs therein, assailed the validity of the
extrajudicial foreclosure sale of their property, claiming that the same was held in
violation of Act No. 3135.
o They also prayed for the cancellation of TCT issued in favor of therein
defendant City Savings and Loan Association, Inc., now known as City Savings
Bank and one of the petitioners herein.

In its answer, the defendant association therein denied the material allegations of the
complaint and averred, among others, that the present private respondent spouses may
still avail of their right of redemption over the land in question.
TC= Loan and REM were valid but annulled the extrajudicial foreclosure sale inasmuch as the
same failed to comply with the notice requirements in Act No. 3135. Its an act about sale of
property.

Not satisfied therewith, herein private respondents interposed a partial appeal to


respondent court with respect to the second and third paragraphs of the aforequoted
decretal portion, contending that the lower court erred in (1) declaring that the mortgage
executed by the therein plaintiff spouses Dolino is valid; (2) permitting therein Cebu City
Savings and Loan Association, Inc. to collect interest after the same foreclosure
proceedings and auction sale which are null and void from the beginning; (3) not ordering
the forfeiture of the capital or balance of the loan with usurious interest; and (4) not
sentencing therein defendant to pay damages and attorney's fees to plaintiffs.
CA= Modified. Declared as void and ineffective the real estate mortgage executed by
plaintiffs in favor of defendant association. Decision is AFFIRMED in other respects. MR=
Denied.
Issue: WON a mortgagor, whose property has been extrajudicially foreclosed and sold at the
corresponding foreclosure sale, may validly execute a mortgage contract over the same
property in favor of a third party during the period of redemption. (YES.)
Held:

What is divested from the mortgagor is only his "full right as owner thereof to
dispose (of) and sell the lands," in effect, merely clarifying that the mortgagor does
not have the unconditional power to absolutely sell the land since the same is
encumbered by a lien of a third person which, if unsatisfied, could result in a
consolidation of ownership in the lienholder but only after the lapse of the period of
redemption. Even on that score, it may plausibly be argued that what is delimited is not
the mortgagor's jus dispodendi, as an attribute of ownership, but merely the rights
conferred by such act of disposal which may correspondingly be restricted.

Since what is presently involved is a mortgage, not a sale, to petitioner bank. Such
mortgage does not involve a transfer, cession or conveyance of the property but only
constitutes a lien thereon. There is no obstacle to the legal creation of such a lien even
after the auction sale of the property but during the redemption period, since no
distinction is made between a mortgage constituted over the property before or after the
auction sale thereof.

Thus, a redemptioner is defined as a creditor having a lien by attachment,


judgment or mortgage on the property sold, or on some part thereof, subsequent to the
judgment under which the property was sold. Of course, while in extrajudicial foreclosure
the sale contemplated is not under a judgment but the proceeding pursuant to which the
mortgaged property was sold, a subsequent mortgage could nevertheless be legally
constituted thereafter with the subsequent mortgagee becoming and acquiring the rights
of a redemptioner, aside from his right against the mortgagor.
In either case, what bears attention is that since the mortgagor remains as the absolute
owner of the property during the redemption period and has the free disposal of his
property, there would be compliance with the requisites of Article 2085 of the Civil
Code for the constitution of another mortgage on the property. To hold otherwise
would create the inequitable situation wherein the mortgagor would be deprived of
the opportunity, which may be his last recourse, to raise funds wherewith to timely
redeem his property through another mortgage thereon.
Coming back to the present controversy, it is undisputed that the real estate mortgage in
favor of petitioner bank was executed by respondent spouses during the period of
redemption. We reiterate that during said period it cannot be said that the mortgagor
is no longer the owner of the foreclosed property since the rule up to now is that the
right of a purchaser at a foreclosure sale is merely inchoate until after the period of
redemption has expired without the right being exercised. The title to land sold under
mortgage foreclosure remains in the mortgagor or his grantee until the expiration of the
redemption period and conveyance by the master's deed. To repeat, the rule has always
been that it is only upon the expiration of the redemption period, without the
judgment debtor having made use of his right of redemption, that the ownership of
the land sold becomes consolidated in the purchaser.
Parenthetically, therefore, what actually is effected where redemption is seasonably
exercised by the judgment or mortgage debtor is not the recovery of ownership of his
land, which ownership he never lost, but the elimination from his title thereto of the lien
created by the levy on attachment or judgment or the registration of a mortgage thereon.
The American rule is similarly to the effect that the redemption of property sold under a
foreclosure sale defeats the inchoate right of the purchaser and restores the property to the
same condition as if no sale had been attempted. Further, it does not give to the
mortgagor a new title, but merely restores to him the title freed of the encumbrance
of the lien foreclosed.
SC=- CA Reversed and Set Aside. TC Reinstated.