Documents

Bernardez vs. Reyes

Categories
Published
of 6
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Description
SCRA
Transcript
  648SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED  Bernardez vs, Reyes G.R. No. 71832. September 24, 1991. * LEON BERNARDEZ and ANICETA BERNARDEZ, petitioners, vs. ARSENIO REYES, respondent  Mortgage of real property; Extrajudicial foreclosure; Period of redemption. —Well-settled is the rule that where a mortgage is foreclosed extrajudicially, Act 3135grants to the mortgagor the right of redemption within one (1) year from theregistration of the sheriff’s certificate of foreclosure sale. xxx xxx xxx. Consideringthen that in the case at bar, the certificate of foreclosure sale issued by the Sheriff wasregistered on April 18, 1963, the right of redemption may be exercised only untilApril 18, 1964. The Bernardez spouses have clearly lost their right to redeem theproperty beyond the said date. Their much belated attempt to do so, notwithstandingtheir offer of considerable interest added to the redemption price, can no longerrevive such right rendered inutile more than fourteen years before. The statutoryperiod of redemption counted from the registration of the Certificate of Sale remainsfixed at one year from the date of registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale. x xx. Even the thirtyday ‘grace period’ to redeem the property granted by the Court of Appeals from the time its decision has become final and executory has no basis inlaw. In fact, this Court has ruled that if no redemption is made within the said period,the purchaser has the absolute right to a writ of possession which is the final processto carry out or consummate the extrajudicial foreclosure. Henceforth the debtors losetheir right over the property. Same; Same; Claim for back rentals covering period of redemption. —Turningnow to respondent Reyes’ claim for back rentals covering the period of redemption,Section 34, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that a purchaser, fromthe time of the sale until a redemption is made, is entitled to receive the rents of theproperty if such property is in the possession of a tenant.  The Bernardez spouses,being judgment debtors and not tenants, may then possess the property withouthaving to pay rents for the use thereof. Reyes, therefore, cannot claim back rentalsfrom the spouses during the period of redemption. PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the then ________________ *  SECOND DIVISION.  649 VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 24, 1991649  Bernardez vs. Reyes Intermediate Appellate Court. Ejercito,  J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.  Wenceslao S Fajardo  for petitioners.  Perfecto R. Bautista  for private respondent.PARAS,  J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the annulment of theJune 26, 1985 decision 1  of the then Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R. CV No. 67344 entitled “Arsenio Reyes v. Leon Bernardez andAniceta Bernardez” which af firmed the order 2  of the Court of FirstInstance of Rizal dated June 23, 1978 declaring that no valid tender of payment was made by petitioners who had lost their right to redeem theproperty and ordering the respondent to pay the petitioners the sum of P6,140.00.The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:Petitioner Leon Bernardez mortgaged a parcel of land to theGovernment Service Insurance System (GSIS for short) to secure a loan.The said land was, however, subsequently foreclosed upon. On April 17,1962, it was sold at public auction to herein respondent Arsenio Reyes.Inscribed on the certificate of title was the date of the sale and theprovision that the period of redemption expires one year after the date of the auction sale or on April 17, 1963. Thereafter, GSIS as attorney-in-factof the Bernardez spouses, executed a Deed of Sale over the land in favorof Reyes on November 8,1962. On April 18, 1963, both the certificate of foreclosure sale issued by the Provincial Sheriff and the said Deed of Salewere registered at the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. On evendate, a new Transfer Certificate of Title was likewise issued in the name of Arsenio Reyes. On October 26, 1963, believing that the period of redemption had already expired, Reyes filed an action in the Court of FirstInstance of Rizal praying that he be declared the ________________  1  Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido Ejercito and concurred in by AssociateJustices Jorge ‘R. Coquia, Mariano A. Zosa and Floreliana Castro Bartolome. 2  Rendered by Judge Eficio B. Acosta. 650 650SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED  Bernardez vs. Reyes owner of the land and asking the court to order the Bernardez spouses topay the attorney’s fees as well as the back rentals from April 17, 1962 toApril 17, 1963. With leave of court, GSIS intervened as third-partydefendant (Rollo, p. 33). On August 23, 1967, after a trial on the merits,the court ruled as follows: “WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of thedefendants and against the plaintiff and the third-party defendant GovernmentService Insurance System giving defendant Leon Bernardez 173 days from and afterreceipt of a copy of this decision within which to redeem the property from theplaintiff by paying P1 ,315.00, the balance of the redemption price to be furnished bythird-party defendant Government Service Insurance System. However, defendantLeon Bernardez shall shoulder the legal interest of the redemption price from the dateof registration of the Deed of Sale executed by the Provincial Sheriff, plus all theother expenses incidental to said redemption. The complaint is dismissed in so far asLigaya Ramos and Dominador Vicente are concerned. The plaintiff is, likewise,ordered to pay the defendants Leon Bernardez and Aniceta Bernardez the sum of P5,000.00 representing moral damages due to anguish, anxiety, besmirchedreputation caused the defendants by the filing of this case; to pay the further sum of P1, ,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and to pay the costs.SO ORDERED. (Rollo, pp. 27–28). Reyes appealed to the Court of Appeals which, in turn, rendered itsdecision dated June 20, 1977, in this wise: “WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed in all respects with themodification that the third-party plaintiffs-appellees (Bernardez) should pay toappellant Arsenio Reyes as redemption price the amount of P6,510.00 with interestthereon at 1 per cent a month from the date of the auction sale on April 17, 1962 upto the time of redemption which the third-party plaintiffs-appellees should exercisewithin thirty (30) days from the time the present decision has become final and  executory. The Government Service Insurance System must refund the amount of P704.99 to Bernardez which is the excess of the auction sale and the further amountof P851.46 which was the amount deducted from the salary of Bernardez after theforeclosure, with costs against the appellant, Arsenio Reyes.SO ORDERED. (Record on Appeal, pp. 27–28; Rollo, p. 33). 651 VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 24, 1991651  Bernardez vs. Reyes On January 31, 1978, the Bernardez spouses offered the sum of P18,000.00 to Reyes apparently to redeem the property, but the latterrefused (Petition, Rollo p. 11}. Such prompted the spouses to consign thesum to the same lower court which ruled in their favor and at the sametime, they filed a manifestation and a motion for modification of judgmentpraying that the court fix the redemption price including interest in theamount of P18,944.10 O and to allow deduction therefrom of the sum of P6,114.00 representing the award of damages due them by Reyes andfinally to order Reyes to accept the balance of P12,831.00 (Rollo, pp. 55,13). Reyes accordingly filed an opposition and a motion for clarificationthereto. The court a quo  on June 23, 1978, laid down the following verdict,presently in dispute: “WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court declares that there was no validtender of payment on the part of the defendants who had lost their right to redeem theproperty upon the failure to exercise such right within the period provided in theDecision of the Court of Appeals. The plaintiff, on the other hand, is liable to thedefendants in the amount of P6,140.00 as decided by this Court and affirmed by theCourt of Appeals.SO ORDERED. (Record on Appeal, pp. 49–50; Rollo, p. 33). The Bernardez spouses moved to reconsider but the motion was denied bythe court in its order dated November 3, 1978 (Rollo, p. 33). The case wasthen elevated to the Intermediate Appellate Court (now renamed Court of Appeals) which simply affirmed the decision of the lower court in allrespects. Hence, this petition.

Use_Cases

Jul 23, 2017

Fasciae.ppt

Jul 23, 2017
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks