FACTS
The land
in controversy is an agricultural lot planted to sugarcane located at Pampanga. It was formerly owned by spouses
Wijangco who mortgaged their lots to the PNB. Unable
to pay their indebtedness, the PNB foreclosed the mortgage contract. In the auction sale that followed, the
lots were awarded to PNB. Spouses Wijanngco failed to redeem the lots within
the reglementary period, hence, ownership thereof
was consolidated in the name of PNB. The PNB executed in favor of spouses Mallari
a Deed of Promise to Sell. The contract likewise provides that PNB
shall retain ownership and title to the lots until the Mallari spouses shall
have paid the last installment. Before the Mallari spouses could pay the first
amortization, the tenants tried to redeem it.
The spouses declined the offer, prompting the tenants to seek the
assistance of the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform in initiating the redemption
with the request that the LBP be called to finance the same. The action sought
to compel the Wijangco spouses, the PNB, and the Mallari spouses to allow the tenants to redeem
their respective landholdings.
The tenants filed with the RTC a "Motion To Direct the Land Bank
of the Philippines to Issue a Certificate of Availability of Funds" for
the purpose of financing the redemption of their respective landholdings. This motion was denied by the RTC. In
the said order, Arcega, et al. were required to show cause why the
case should not be dismissed for their failure to make a tender of payment
and/or consignation. They
presented a Certification issued by the LBP. Despite the above Certification,
the RTC, denied Arcega, et al.'s
motion. The CA ruled that it was not necessary for Arcega, et al. to tender payment and/or
consign the redemption price as the Certification issued by the Land Bank will
suffice and that the exercise of the right of redemption was made within the
180-day period.
The
Mallari spouses challenged the CA Decision before this Court. This Court,
denied the petition holding that (1) Arcega, et
al.'s right of redemption has not yet prescribed because no notice in writing of the sale was ever given by the vendee upon the
tenants as agricultural lessees of the land, as required by law; and (2) that it is not necessary for the lessee to make a
tender of payment and/or consignation of the amount of redemption price since
the Certification issued by the Land Bank that it will finance the redemption
of the property in question is sufficient compliance with Section 12 of R.A.
No. 3844, as amended. Pursuant
to this Decision, the petition for redemption was remanded to the RTC for
further proceedings.
The RTC
rendered a Decision dismissing for the second time Arcega, et al.'s petition for
redemption, in utter disregard of the Decision of this Court. Arcega, et al. appealed the RTC Decision to the
CA. The CA rendered a Decision reversing the RTC Decision and ruling that what
the RTC should have done, upon receipt of the record of the case, was to have resolved the question on the reasonable amount of the redemption price, nothing more.
ISSUE
Whether
or not Arcega, et al. can
exercise their right of redemption under Section 12, R.A. No. 3844, as amended
RULING
Yes. The right of redemption under this Section may
be exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing which shall
be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian
Reform upon the registration of the sale, and
shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. This Court, affirmed the CA decision,
and resolved the said issue in favor of Arcega, et al., thus: the tenants had the right to redeem the property
under the law and such right of redemption has not yet prescribed because no notice in writing of the sale was ever given by the vendee upon the
tenants as agricultural lessees of the land, as required by law. The
appellate court correctly ruled that it is not necessary for the lessee to make a tender of payment and/or
consignation of the amount of redemption price, and that a certification issued by the Land Bank that it will finance the redemption of
the property in question is sufficient. The RTC ruling is
erroneous. It should not have
dismissed Arcega, et al.'s petition for redemption.
Comments
Post a Comment