G.R. No. L-52831 July 29, 1983
MANUEL R. DULAY, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE GLICERIO V. CARRIAGA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, and EUSEBIO C. TANGHAL, respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 2152 for recovery of a sum of money, the Court of First Instance of Cotabato rendered a decision ordering petitioner Manuel R. Dulay to pay private respondent Eusebio C. Tanghal the sum of P143,980.00. To satisfy the judgment, seventeen parcels of land belonging to Dulay were levied upon and sold at public auction to Tanghal as the highest bidder for the total sum of P82,598.00.
Within the reglementary period for redemption, Dulay redeemed eight of the levied properties by paying the prices at which they were actually sold at the auction, totaling P17,017.00, and was issued a Certificate of Redemption. However, upon Tanghal’s motion, the trial court annulled the redemption. Citing Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Mirang, the respondent judge declared the redemption null and void on two grounds: that piece-meal redemption is not allowed by law, and that for a valid redemption, the judgment debtor must pay the entire judgment debt, not merely the purchase price.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling the redemption on the grounds that piece-meal redemption is invalid and that the redemptioner must pay the entire judgment debt instead of the purchase price.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The petition is granted. The Supreme Court clarified that the governing rule for redemption of properties sold at an execution sale to satisfy a money judgment is Section 30 (now Section 27), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. This provision explicitly allows a judgment debtor to redeem the property “by paying the purchaser the amount of his purchase, with the interest thereon.” The amount payable is the purchase price at the auction sale, not the entire judgment debt. The Court, citing Castillo vs. Nagtalon, reaffirmed this principle, stating that upon a sale on execution, the judgment is thereby satisfied pro tanto and the judgment debt is replaced by the purchase price for redemption purposes.
The respondent judge’s reliance on DBP vs. Mirang was misplaced, as that case involved a distinct factual and legal setting. Mirang pertained to the redemption of a mortgaged property foreclosed and sold at public auction to the Development Bank of the Philippines, a government financial institution. Its charter, a special law, required the mortgagor to pay “all the amounts he owed the latter on the date of the sale” to effect redemption. This special protection afforded to government lending institutions by their charters does not extend to ordinary judgment creditors in civil actions for money claims. The general rule under the Rules of Court applies to the instant case. Consequently, Dulay’s redemption by paying the auction purchase prices for the specific parcels was valid. The order annulling the redemption was annulled and set aside.