7/29/2019 Biana v. Gimenez (G.R. No. 132768)

1/2

PROPERTYDIGESTS(20132014) ATTY.VIVENCIOABANO

RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ

G.R.No.132768 September9,2005

BIANAv.GIMENEZ

Plaintiffs:JAIMEB.BIANA

Defendant:GEORGEGIMENEZ

CASE:Gimenezwasoneofthedefendantswholostinalaborcase.As

such, he and hisco-defendants had to pay their opponentSantos B.

Mendones. The petitioners failed to pay, so Sheriff Renato Madera

issuedalevyon4parcelsoflandtitledtothem.Subsequentlyapublic

auctionwasheld,andMendonesacquiredthelotsunderaProvisional

Deed of Sale. For purposes of paying the redemption price of the

subject properties, Gimenezdepositedwith Provincial Sheriff Manuel

GarchitorenathesumofP5,625.89forwhichthelatterissuedareceipt.Later, Sheriff Madera wrote that Gimenez still owed a sum for the

redemptionpriceincludingthepublicationfee.Gimenezclaimstohave

paidthe publicationfee in fullalready.The 1-yearredemptionperiod

lapsedsoanAbsoluteDeedofSalewasissuedtoMendones(wholater

assignedallhisrightstoJaimeB.Biana).Gimenezthusfiledapetition

formandamustoordertheSheriffstoissueadeedofredemptioninhis

favor.

TheSupremeCourtruledthatwhenGimenezsdepositofchecksforthe

redemption of the properties were valid even though they were

postdated, because a tender of a check is sufficient for purposes of

redemptionalthoughitdoesnotlifttheobligationoftheredemptioner

topayforthepropertytoberedeemed.Inaddition,theCourtupheld

thenullificationoftheDeedofSalesayingthatanindependentsuitfor

suchwasnotnecessarysinceGimenezprayedforitanyway.

DOCTRINE:Therightofredemptioninvolvestheexerciseofaright,and

assuch,whatappliesisthesettledrulethatameretenderofacheckis

sufficienttocompelredemption.

BACKGROUND:

In a labor case before the Naga City District Office of theDepartmentofLaborandEmployment(SantosB.Mendonesv.

Gimenez Park Subdivision and George Gimenez), defendants

thereinincludinghereinrespondenthadtopayMendonesasum of P1,520 as well as sheriffs fees and expenses of

execution.

Deputy Sheriff Renato Madera computed the judgmentobligationtobeatP5,248.50anddemandeditspayment.

Defendantsfailed topayso SheriffMadera proceeded to levyandattach4parcelsoflandwhichwereregisteredinthenames

of JoseGimenez, TessaGimenez,MaricelGimenezandherein

respondentGeorgeGimenez.

December6,1978apublicauctionwasheldforthe4parcelsofland,andMendoneswonassolebidder.Thus,a ProvisionalCertificateofSalewasissuedforMendones.

Gimenezclaimsthathewasnotnotifiedoftheexecutionsale,andsuchonlycametohisknowledgewhenarepresentativeof

SheriffMaderaasked himto paythe publicationfee (P3,510),

whichhepaidinfullthroughchecks.

Forthepurposeofpayingtheredemptionpriceoftheparcelsoflandsoldattheexecutionsale,GimenezapproachedProvincial

Sheriff Manuel Garchitorena (because he could not locate

SheriffMadera)whoinformedhimthathehadatotalbalance

ofP6,625.89.Thus,Gimenezissued4checksandwasissueda

receiptfortheamountofP5,625.89onJuly19,1979(4months

and 18 days before the expiration of the 1-year redemption

period).

December3,1979SheriffMaderawroteGimenezscounselthatthe1-yearredemptionperiodwillexpireonDecember7,

andGimenez stillhas a balance, including thepublicationfee.

This was contested by Gimenez saying he had paid the

publicationfeeinfulltothepublisherBicolStar.

7/29/2019 Biana v. Gimenez (G.R. No. 132768)

2/2

PROPERTYDIGESTS(20132014) ATTY.VIVENCIOABANO

RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ

December8,1979SheriffMaderaissuedaDefiniteDeedofSaleinfavorofMendones.

Meanwhile,forallegedlyhavingpaidthefullredemptionprice,respondentGimenezrequestedSheriffGarchitorenatoexecute

adeedofredemptioninhisfavor,butwasrefused.

GimenezfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourtaspecialcivilactionformandamus to compelSheriffGarchitorenaandMadera to

executethedeedofredemption.

o Duringthe pendencyofthe case,Mendones assignedhisrightsoverthedisputedpropertytoJaimeBianafor

P1M.

January 20, 1999 The RTC ruled in favor of Gimenezanddeclared the deed of sale null and void, and ordered the

executionoftheDeedofRedemptioninfavorofGimenez.

July19,1997CourtofAppealsaffirmedintoto.

ISSUESTOBERESOLVED:

1. WhetherornottheProvincialSheriffofCamarinesSurbelegallycompelledtoexecuteadeedofredemptioninfavorofGimenez

RESOLUTIONSANDARGUMENTS

ISSUE1 WhetherornottheProvincialSheriffofCamarinesSurbelegallycompelledtoexecuteadeedofredemptioninfavorofGimenez.

MajorPoint1:Therightofredemptioninvolvestheexerciseofaright,

and assuch,whatapplies isthe settled rule that ameretender ofa

checkissufficienttocompelredemption.

Petitioner contends that there is yet no redemption becausewhatweretenderedwerepostdatedchecks.Topetitioner,the

tender did not operate as payment of the redemption price,

hencerespondentisnotentitledtoadeedofredemption.

Fortunatov.CAAcheckmaybeusedfortheexerciseoftheright of redemptionThe tender of a check is sufficient to

compelredemptionbutisnotinitselfapaymentthatrelieves

theredemptionerfromhisliabilitytopaytheredemptionprice.

This is strengthened by the fact that Sheriff Madera himselfdeducted the 4 checks issued by Gimenez from the latters

liability when he submitted the itemization requestedby the

latterscounsel.

MajorPoint2:TheCourtmayrule onthenullificationoftheDeedofSalesinceitwasspecificallyprayedforbyrespondent.

Petitioner argues that because the Deed of Sale had alreadybeenissued,itwasanerrortohaveevenentertainedGimenezs

suit for mandamus. Petitioner adds that respondent should

havefiledanindependentactiontonullifytheDeedofSale.

The Supreme Court cited that along with the petition formandamus with damages, petitioner prayed for the Deed of

Sale to be declared null and void. Since a prayer for the

nullificationofthedeedwasalreadybroughtbeforethecourt,

anindependentactionfor thenullification thereofwouldonlyresultinthemultiplicityofsuit.

FINALVERDICT:TheSupremeCourtagreeswiththerulingofthelower

courts that there has been a valid payment of the redemption price

which would entit le respondent to the issuance of a Deed of

Redemptioninhisfavor.

NOSEPARATEOPINIONS