SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211489. June 26, 2019.]
REYNALDO TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs.BPI FAMILY BANK, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated26 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 211489 — REYNALDO TOLENTINO vs. BPI FAMILY BANK
Petitioner Reynaldo Tolentino charges the Court of Appeals with indecisiveness or "flip-flopping" when on one hand, it ruled that as assumptee of mortgage, he had the right to redeem subject properties; on the other hand, it upheld the dismissal of his complaint for judicial redemption on ground of failure to comply with all the requirements for redemption.
The case stemmed from a Php4.7 million loan obtained by Spouses Roberth and Myra Constancia Tolentino from respondent BPI Family Bank. The loan was secured by mortgage on the following properties covered by TCT Nos. 147801, 147802, 147803, 147804, 147805, and 147806.
On April 10, 2000, or five days after receipt of the loan proceeds, Spouses Tolentino executed a deed of sale with assumption of mortgage in favor of petitioner Reynaldo Tolentino.
Petitioner paid five monthly installments for the loan. Petitioner, however, abruptly stopped payment because respondent refused to acknowledge him as transferee under the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage.
Consequently, for Spouses Tolentino's failure to pay their obligation, respondent extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage on the six parcels of land. At the public auction of March 12, 2002, respondent emerged as the highest bidder. The certificates of sale were all annotated on the titles.
With the period of redemption about to expire on April 18, 2003, petitioner requested a detailed computation of the redemption price from respondent under letter dated April 4, 2003. On April 14, 2003, respondent sent petitioner a statement of account via fax. But even before respondent could receive it, he had already filed a complaint for judicial redemption, mandamus, equity on account, and damages with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction against respondent. Petitioner alleged in the main that respondent refused to recognize him as substitute mortgagor and even refused the monthly amortizations he paid on the loan.
Respondent countered it was not notified of the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage executed by petitioner with Spouses Tolentino. It was, thus, not bound to recognize petitioner or accept the latter's offer of payment.
By Decision 1 dated April 25, 2008, the complaint was dismissed. Citing Bonnevie vs. CA, 2 the trial court held that petitioner had no right to redeem the property because the sale between him and the mortgagors (Spouses Tolentino) was without the consent of respondent as mortgagee. Respondent was, therefore, not validly substituted as debtors. Further, since the sale was not registered, petitioner's right as buyer was not recorded. Consequently, respondent was only obliged to recognize the redemption rights of the original mortgagors.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals clarified that contrary to the trial court's conclusion, petitioner had the right to redeem the property. The appellate court held that a transferee may be allowed to redeem the property despite failure to obtain the mortgagee's consent. For to rule otherwise would be tantamount to limiting an owner's right to transfer the property, in violation of Article 2130 of the Civil Code. 3
This notwithstanding, the Court of Appeals still upheld the dismissal of petitioner's complaint below for his failure to comply with the following requirements for judicial redemption, viz.: (1) timely redemption or redemption by expiration date; (2) good faith; and (3) prompt payment. The appellate court noted that although petitioner was timely furnished copy of his statement of account, he did not immediately settle in full the redemption price indicated therein. Instead, he sent a letter request to respondent ten months later, requesting a waiver of the additional charges. Neither did petitioner attach a check or any other form of payment to the letter request, which could have otherwise signified his genuine intention to redeem subject properties. To be sure, petitioner cannot unduly prolong payment of the redemption price, causing the bank to second guess when it could recover its investment on the mortgaged properties. 4 Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. 5
THE PRESENT PETITION
Petitioner implores the Court to exercise its discretionary appellate jurisdiction to reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeals and allow him to pay the redemption price, as a matter of right. Petitioner maintains that he did not fail to pay the redemption price; it was in fact the trial court which reneged on its duty to require the bank to submit an updated statement of account, indicating the correct computation of redemption price. Copy of the statement of account which respondent furnished him bore an erroneous computation of the redemption price as it included fees, penalties, and other charges in violation of Section 6 of Act 3135 and Section 47 of RA 8791 or the General Banking Law of 2000.
On the other hand, respondent defends the Court of Appeals' finding that there was no real intention on petitioner's part to redeem the property. The general rule in redemption requires not just mere manifestation of one's desire to redeem a property. It must be accompanied by actual and simultaneous tender of payment sufficient to cover the redemption price and the same must be made in good faith.
After a judicious review of the case records, there is no cogent reason to review, reverse, or modify the Decision dated July 26, 2013 of the Court of Appeals. For indeed, it is a matter of record that petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements for a valid and effective exercise of the right of redemption.
It is not sufficient that a person offering to redeem manifests his/her desire to do so. The statement of intention must be accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of payment. This constitutes the exercise of the right to repurchase. Bona fide redemption necessarily implies a reasonable and valid tender of the entire purchase price, otherwise, the rule on the redemption period fixed by law can easily be circumvented. 6
The rationale for requiring actual and simultaneous tender of payment is to prevent the prolonged economic uncertainty over the ownership of the thing sold. 7 It is understood that the existence of the right of redemption operates to depress the market value of the land until the period expires. Pending redemption, the buyer of the property cannot recover the value of his investment, while the landowner's effort to realize the full value of his land is paralyzed. 8 To avoid this impasse, one exercising the right of redemption must not only express the intention to do so. The intent must be coupled with actual payment or tender of payment, of the full purchase price. This way, any uncertainty or doubt in the ownership of land is immediately resolved.
There is no doubt that petitioner had expressed his intention to redeem the properties subject of the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage which he executed with Spouses Tolentino. He even wrote respondent, requesting for a computation of the redemption price. Petitioner, however, did not tender the full amount of the redemption price to respondent despite receipt of the requested computation. He waited for ten months after receipt of the computation before he communicated again with respondent, but still not to tender payment, but only to ask a recomputation of the redemption price, less penalties and other charges.
To the mind of this Court, petitioner's action does not convey a real and honest intent to redeem the properties in question. At any rate, petitioner admits that the properties have an aggregate value of Php15 Million. This valuation is twice the amount of the redemption price pegged at P7,312,543.87. For this windfall, petitioner is expected to exhaust all means and ways available to him for redemption of these properties at the earliest opportunity. As it was, however, petitioner kept delaying, citing this or that reason: he indubitably lacked the serious intent to actually redeem the properties.
In fine, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that petitioner had lost his right to redeem the properties in question. Redemption within the period allowed by law is not a matter of intent but a question of payment or valid tender of the full redemption price. It is irrelevant whether the mortgagor is diligent in asserting his or her willingness to pay. What counts is that the full amount of the redemption price must be actually paid; otherwise, the offer to redeem will be ineffectual and the purchaser may justly refuse acceptance of any sum that is less than the entire amount. 9
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED and the Decision dated July 26, 2013 and Resolution dated February 25, 2014, AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 62-66.
2. 210 Phil. 100, 112 (1983).
3. Decision dated July 26, 2013, penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam with Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring; rollo, pp. 47-48.
4.Id. at 48-52.
5. Under Resolution dated February 25, 2014; id. at 54-56.
6. See Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Spouses Tan, et al., 590 Phil. 827, 843-844 (2008).
7. See BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Spouses Veloso, 479 Phil. 627, 635 (2004).
8.BPI Family Savings Bank v. Veloso, 479 Phil. 627, 635 (2004) citing Basbas v. Entena, G.R. No. L-26255, June 30, 1969, 28 SCRA 665, 671.
9.GE Money Bank, Inc. (formerly Keppel Bank Philippines, Inc.) v. Spouses Victorino M. Dizon and Rosalina Dizon, 756 Phil. 502, 513 (2015).