Redemption Rights: Understanding Partial Redemption in Philippine Foreclosure Law

TLDR: This case clarifies that in the Philippines, even if multiple properties are sold together in a foreclosure sale for a single price, a redemptioner (like a subsequent buyer) can legally redeem only some of the properties, not necessarily all of them. This right is crucial for those who acquire only a portion of mortgaged assets.

G.R. No. 171868 & G.R. No. 171991, July 27, 2011

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a scenario where a family purchases several mortgaged lands, unaware of the complexities of foreclosure law. When the original owner defaults and all the lands are sold together at auction, can the new family, who only bought some of the parcels, redeem just those specific properties they acquired? This was the core question in a significant Philippine Supreme Court case, highlighting the intricacies of redemption rights in foreclosure proceedings. This case underscores the importance of understanding that redemption in the Philippines can, under certain circumstances, be exercised piecemeal, offering a lifeline to those who have acquired portions of foreclosed properties.

In this case, Spouses Yap bought several lots that were part of a larger set of mortgaged properties sold at foreclosure to Dumaguete Rural Bank (DRBI). The original mortgagors, Spouses Dy and Maxino, had previously purchased all the mortgaged properties from the original owners and attempted to redeem only some of the lots (Lots 1 and 6) from the Yaps, who had bought them from DRBI after foreclosure. The Yaps argued against partial redemption, claiming that since all properties were sold for a single price, redemption must be for all, not just some, of the foreclosed lots. The Supreme Court ultimately resolved whether partial redemption is valid in such cases.

LEGAL CONTEXT: REDEMPTION RIGHTS AND MORTGAGE INDIVISIBILITY

Redemption rights in the Philippines are governed primarily by Act No. 3135 (the law regulating extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages) and Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. These laws provide a mortgagor, or their successor-in-interest, the right to redeem property sold in a foreclosure sale within a specified period, typically one year from the registration of the sale. The purpose of redemption is to allow the mortgagor a chance to recover their property by paying off the debt and associated costs.

Section 31, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which was applicable at the time of this case, explicitly states:

The payments mentioned in this and the last preceding sections may be made to the purchaser or redemptioner, or for him to the officer who made the sale.

This section clarifies that redemption payments can be validly tendered to either the purchaser at the foreclosure sale or the sheriff who conducted the sale. This becomes particularly important when disputes arise regarding who is the rightful recipient of redemption money.

The Yaps, however, invoked the principle of the indivisibility of a mortgage, arguing that since the mortgage was indivisible and the properties were sold as a whole, redemption must also be for the whole package. The Civil Code principle of indivisibility of mortgage (Article 2089) generally means that a mortgage is a single, unified security for the entire debt, even if the debt is divisible or the property is composed of several parts. However, the Supreme Court clarified the limits of this principle in foreclosure scenarios.

CASE BREAKDOWN: YAP VS. DY AND MAXINO

The case unfolded through a series of property transfers, loans, and foreclosure proceedings, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court to settle the dispute over redemption rights:

1. Initial Mortgage: Spouses Tirambulo mortgaged several land parcels to Dumaguete Rural Bank, Inc. (DRBI) to secure loans.
2. Sale to Dys and Maxinos: Without DRBI’s consent, the Tirambulos sold all seven mortgaged lots to Spouses Dy and Maxinos.
3. Foreclosure: Tirambulos defaulted, and DRBI foreclosed on five of the lots (Lots 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8) and bought them at auction for P216,040.93. Lot 3 was notably *not* included in this foreclosure.
4. Sale to Yaps: DRBI sold Lots 1, 3, and 6 to Spouses Yap shortly after the foreclosure sale registration. Critically, Lot 3 was sold to the Yaps even though it was *not* part of the foreclosed properties.
5. Redemption Attempt: Spouses Dy and Maxinos attempted to redeem Lots 1 and 6, tendering P40,000, which was refused by both DRBI and the Yaps.
6. Sheriff Redemption: Dys and Maxinos then paid P50,625.29 to the Provincial Sheriff for redemption of Lots 1 and 6. The Sheriff issued a Certificate of Redemption for only Lots 1 and 6, explicitly noting Lot 3 was not foreclosed.
7. Legal Battles: Two cases ensued:
• Civil Case No. 8426 (Dys and Maxinos vs. Yaps and DRBI): Dys and Maxinos sought to nullify the sale of Lot 3 to Yaps and affirm their partial redemption.
• Civil Case No. 8439 (Yaps vs. Dys and Maxinos, DRBI, and Sheriff): Yaps sought ownership consolidation and to nullify the certificate of redemption, arguing for full redemption.
8. Trial Court: Initially ruled in favor of the Yaps, declaring the Dys and Maxinos’ redemption invalid.
9. Court of Appeals (CA): Reversed the trial court, upholding the validity of the partial redemption by Dys and Maxinos and finding DRBI liable for damages for including Lot 3 in the sale to the Yaps. The CA stated, Declaring the redemption made by Spouses Dy and Spouses Maxino with regards to Lot No. 6 under TCT No. T-14781 and Lot No. 1 under TCT No. [T-]14777 as valid.
10. Supreme Court: Affirmed the CA’s decision with modification. The Supreme Court emphasized that Nothing in the law prohibits the piecemeal redemption of properties sold at one foreclosure proceeding. It also highlighted that the principle of indivisibility of mortgage does not apply after a complete foreclosure.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to compute the exact pro-rata value of Lots 1 and 6 at the time of redemption to finalize the redemption amount, ensuring fairness to both parties. The Court also upheld the damages awarded against DRBI for their improper inclusion of Lot 3 in the sale and certificate of sale.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PIECEMEAL REDEMPTION AND DUE DILIGENCE

This Supreme Court decision has significant implications for property law and foreclosure proceedings in the Philippines. It definitively establishes that:

• Partial Redemption is Valid: Redemption is not necessarily an all-or-nothing affair. Successors-in-interest who acquire only some of the foreclosed properties can redeem just those specific parcels, even if they were sold en masse at auction.
• Indivisibility Limited Post-Foreclosure: The principle of mortgage indivisibility does not extend to prevent partial redemption after a complete foreclosure sale has extinguished the original mortgage.
• Due Diligence is Crucial: Banks and purchasers must exercise extreme care in foreclosure proceedings to ensure accuracy in property descriptions and sale certificates. Incorrectly including properties can lead to liability for damages.

Key Lessons

• For Purchasers of Mortgaged Properties: If you buy mortgaged land, especially as part of a larger mortgaged set, understand your right to redeem *just* the properties you purchased if foreclosure occurs. Partial redemption is a valid legal strategy in the Philippines.
• For Banks and Lending Institutions: Ensure absolute accuracy in foreclosure documents, especially property descriptions. Mistakes can lead to financial penalties and legal challenges.
• For Borrowers and Successors-in-Interest: Be aware of your redemption rights and the timelines involved. Even if you can only afford to redeem a portion of the foreclosed properties, Philippine law provides you with that option.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: Can I redeem only a portion of foreclosed properties if they were sold together?

A: Yes, according to this Supreme Court ruling, Philippine law allows for piecemeal or partial redemption. You are not obligated to redeem all properties sold together if you are only interested in or capable of redeeming some.

Q: What is the redemption period in the Philippines for extrajudicial foreclosure?

A: Generally, the redemption period is one (1) year from the date of registration of the certificate of sale.

Q: To whom should I tender the redemption money?

A: You can tender the redemption money to either the purchaser at the foreclosure sale or to the Sheriff who conducted the sale. If both refuse, consignation with the court may be necessary.

Q: What amount do I need to pay for redemption?

A: The redemption price typically includes the purchase price at auction, plus interest (usually 1% per month), and any taxes or assessments paid by the purchaser after the sale, also with interest. For partial redemption, the pro-rata value of the properties being redeemed needs to be calculated.

Q: What happens if the bank wrongfully includes my property in a foreclosure sale?

A: As seen in this case, the bank can be held liable for damages, including moral and exemplary damages, for wrongfully including properties in a foreclosure sale that were not actually part of the mortgage agreement or foreclosure proceedings.

Q: Is it necessary to have the mortgagee’s consent to sell a mortgaged property?

A: While technically the sale is valid even without consent, it’s always advisable to inform the mortgagee. The new buyer steps into the shoes of the mortgagor and acquires redemption rights, but lack of notification can sometimes complicate matters.

Q: What is the effect of the principle of indivisibility of mortgage in foreclosure?

A: The principle of indivisibility primarily applies while the mortgage is active, preventing partial releases of mortgage for partial payments. However, once foreclosure is complete, and the mortgage is extinguished, this principle does not bar partial redemption.

Q: What should I do if my redemption payment is refused?

A: If your redemption payment is refused by the purchaser or bank, you should immediately tender payment to the Sheriff and consider consigning the amount with the court to protect your redemption rights and initiate legal action if necessary.

Q: Where can I find the exact laws regarding redemption in the Philippines?

A: You can refer to Act No. 3135 (as amended) and Rule 39 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines. Consulting with a legal professional is always recommended for specific situations.

Q: What is pro-rata value in partial redemption?

A: Pro-rata value refers to the proportionate value of the specific properties being redeemed, relative to the total value of all properties sold at foreclosure. This needs to be fairly computed, often requiring appraisal, to determine the accurate redemption price for partial redemption scenarios.

ASG Law specializes in Real Estate Law and Foreclosure matters. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.