[G.R. No. 128567.

September 1, 2000]

HUERTA ALBA RESORT, N!., petitioner, vs. !OURT O" A##EALS $%& S'N( !ATE( )ANAGE)ENT GROU#, N!., respondents. (E! S ON
#UR S )A, J.*

Litigation must at some time be terminated, even at the risk of occasional errors. Public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the role of courts in disposing justiciable controversies with finality.
T+e!$,e

At bar is a petition assailing the ecision, dated !ovember "#, "$$%, and &esolution, dated 'arch "", "$$(, of the )ourt of Appeals in )A*+.&. !o. ,-(#(, which set aside the .rder, dated /uly 0", "$$1, and .rder, dated 2eptember #, "$$(, of the &egional 3rial )ourt of 'akati )ity, in )ivil )ase !o. -$*1#0#. 3he aforesaid orders of the trial court held that petitioner had the right to redeem subject pieces of property within the one*year period prescribed by 2ection (- of &epublic Act !o. ,,( otherwise known as the +eneral 4anking Act. 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,( provides that 5in case of a foreclosure of a mortgage in favor of a bank, banking or credit institution, whether judicially or extrajudicially, the mortgagor shall have the right, within one year after the sale of the real estate as a result of the foreclosure of the respective mortgage, to redeem the property.6
T+e"$-t,

3he facts that matter are undisputed7 8n a complaint for judicial foreclosure of mortgage with preliminary injunction filed on .ctober "$, "$-$, docketed as )ivil )ase !o. -$*1#0# before the &egional 3rial )ourt of 'akati )ity, the herein private respondent sought the foreclosure of four 9#: parcels of land mortgaged by petitioner to 8ntercon ;und &esource, 8nc. 958ntercon6:.

Private respondent instituted )ivil )ase !o. -$*1#0# as mortgagee*assignee of a loan amounting to P-.1 million obtained by petitioner from 8ntercon, in whose favor petitioner mortgaged the aforesaid parcels of land as security for the said loan. 8n its answer below, petitioner <uestioned the assignment by 8ntercon of its mortgage right thereover to the private respondent, on the ground that the same was ultra vires. Petitioner also <uestioned during the trial the correctness of the charges and interest on the mortgage debt in <uestion. .n April ,=, "$$0, the trial court, through the then /udge now )ourt of Appeals /ustice 4uenaventura /. +uerrero, came out with its decision 5granting herein private respondent 2'+8>s complaint for judicial foreclosure of mortgage6, disposing as follows7

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the following: ( ! "#,$%%,%%%&%% representing the prin'ipal of the amount due( ()! "#$%,%%%&%% as penalty 'harges with interest at *+ per annum, until fully paid( (,! ))+ per annum interest on the abo-e prin'ipal from .eptember *, //#, until fully paid( (0! $+ of the sum total of the abo-e amounts, as reasonable attorney1s fees( and, ($! 2osts&
3ll the abo-e must be paid within a period of not less than $% days from re'eipt hereof by the defendant& 4n default of su'h payment, the four par'els of land subje't matter of the suit in'luding its impro-ements shall be sold to reali5e the mortgage debt and 'osts, in the manner and under the regulations that go-ern sales of real estate under e6e'ution&7
8 9

Petitioner appealed the decision of the trial court to the )ourt of Appeals, the appeal docketed as )A*+.&. )? !o. ,$0#, before the 2ixth ivision of the appellate court, which dismissed the case on /une 0$, "$$, on the ground of late payment of docket fees. issatisfied with the dismissal of )A*+.&. !o. ,$0#,, petitioner came to this )ourt via a petition for certiorari, docketed as +.&. !o. ""0=##, which this court resolved to dismiss on ecember ",, "$$,, on the finding that the )ourt of Appeals erred not in dismissing the appeal of petitioner. Petitioner>s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of its petition in +.&. !o. ""0=## was denied with finality in this )ourt>s &esolution promulgated on ;ebruary "%, "$$#. .n 'arch "=, "$$#, leave to present a second motion for reconsideration in +.&. !o. ""0=## or to submit the case for hearing by the )ourt en banc was filed, but to no avail. 3he )ourt resolved to deny the same on 'ay "", "$$#.

.n 'arch "#, "$$#, the &esolution dated ecember ",, "$$,, in +.&. !o. ""0=## became final and executory and was entered in the 4ook of @ntries of /udgment. .n /uly #, "$$#, private respondent filed with the trial court of origin a motion for execution of the ecision promulgated on April ,=, "$$0 in )ivil )ase !o. -$*1#0#. 3he said motion was granted on /uly ",, "$$#. Accordingly, on /uly "1, "$$# a writ of execution issued and, on /uly 0=, "$$#, a !otice of Levy and @xecution was issued by the 2heriff concerned, who issued on August ", "$$# a !otice of 2heriff>s 2ale for the auction of subject properties on 2eptember %, "$$#. .n August 0,, "$$#, petitioner filed with the same trial court an Urgent 'otion to Auash and 2et Aside Brit of @xecution ascribing to it grave abuse of discretion in issuing the <uestioned Brit of @xecution. 3o support its motion, petitioner invited attention and argued that the records of the case were still with the )ourt of Appeals and therefore, issuance of the writ of execution was premature since the "1=*day period for petitioner to pay the judgment obligation had not yet lapsed and petitioner had not yet defaulted in the payment thereof since no demand for its payment was made by the private respondent. 8n petitioner>s own words, the dispute between the parties was 5principally on the issue as to when the "1=*day period within which Cuerta Alba may exercise its e<uity of redemption should be counted.6 8n its .rder of 2eptember 0, "$$#, the lower court denied petitioner>s urgent motion to <uash the writ of execution in )ivil )ase !o. -$*1#0#, opining that subject judgment had become final and executory and conse<uently, execution thereof was a matter of right and the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution became its ministerial duty. )hallenging the said order granting execution, petitioner filed once more with the )ourt of Appeals another petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, docketed as ).A.*+.&. 2P !o. ,1=-%, predicated on the same grounds invoked for its 'otion to Auash Brit of @xecution. .n 2eptember %, "$$#, the scheduled auction sale of subject pieces of properties proceeded and the private respondent was declared the highest bidder. 3hus, private respondent was awarded subject bidded pieces of property. 3he covering )ertificate of 2ale issued in its favor was registered with the &egistry of eeds on .ctober 0", "$$#. .n 2eptember (, "$$#, petitioner presented an @x*Parte 'otion for )larification asking the trial court to 5clarify6 whether or not the twelve 9"0: month period of redemption for ordinary execution applied in the case. .n 2eptember 0%, "$$#, the trial court ruled that the period of redemption of subject property should be governed by the rule on the sale of judicially foreclosed property under &ule %- of the &ules of )ourt. 3hereafter, petitioner then filed an @xception to the .rder dated 2eptember 0%, "$$# and 'otion to 2et Aside 2aid .rder, contending that the said .rder materially altered the ecision dated April ,=, "$$0 5which declared that the satisfaction of the

judgment shall be in the manner and under the regulation that govern sale of real estate under execution.6 'eanwhile, in its ecision of 2eptember ,=, "$$#, the )ourt of Appeals resolved the issues raised by the petitioner in ).A.*+.&. 2P !o. ,1=-%, holding that the one hundred*fifty day period within which petitioner may redeem subject properties should be computed from the date petitioner was notified of the @ntry of /udgment in +.&. !o. ""0=##D and that the "1=*day period within which petitioner may exercise its e<uity of redemption expired on 2eptember "", "$$#. 3hus7

"etitioner must ha-e re'ei-ed the resolution of the .upreme 2ourt dated February *, //0 denying with finality its motion for re'onsideration in :&R& ;o& )%00 before <ar'h 0, //0, otherwise the .upreme 2ourt would not ha-e made an entry of judgment on <ar'h 0, //0& While, 'omputing the $%=day period, petitioner may ha-e until .eptember , //0, within whi'h to pay the amounts 'o-ered by the judgment, su'h period has already e6pired by this time, and therefore, this 2ourt has no more reason to pass upon the parties1 opposing 'ontentions, the same ha-ing be'ome moot and a'ademi'&7 (>nders'oring supplied!&
8)9

Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the ecision of the )ourt of Appeals in ).A.* +.&. 2P !o. ,1=-%. 8n its 'otion for &econsideration dated .ctober "-, "$$#, petitioner theoriEed that the period of one hundred fifty 9"1=: days should not be reckoned with from @ntry of /udgment but from receipt on or before /uly 0$, "$$# by the trial court of the records of )ivil )ase !o. -$*1#0# from the )ourt of Appeals. 2o also, petitioner maintained that it may not be considered in default, even after the expiration of "1= days from /uly 0$, "$$#, because prior demand to pay was never made on it by the private respondent. According to petitioner, it was therefore, premature for the trial court to issue a writ of execution to enforce the judgment. 3he trial court deferred action on the 'otion for )onfirmation of the )ertificate of 2ale in view of the pendency of petitioner>s 'otion for &econsideration in )A*+.&. 2P !o. ,1=-%. .n ecember 0,, "$$#, the )ourt of Appeals denied petitioner>s motion for reconsideration in )A*+.&. 2P !o. ,1=-%. Absent any further action with respect to the denial of the subject motion for reconsideration, private respondent presented a 2econd 'otion for )onfirmation of )ertificate of 2ale before the trial court. As regards the ecision rendered on 2eptember ,=, "$$# by the )ourt of Appeals in )A +.&. 2P !o. ,1=-% it became final and executory on /anuary 01, "$$1. .n ;ebruary "=, "$$1, the lower court confirmed the sale of subject properties to the private respondent. 3he pertinent .rder declared that all pending incidents relating to the .rder dated 2eptember 0%, "$$# had become moot and academic. )onformably, the 3ransfer )ertificates of 3itle to subject pieces of property were then issued to the private respondent.

.n ;ebruary 0(, "$$1, petitioner filed with the )ourt of Appeals a 'otion for )larification seeking 5clarification6 of the date of commencement of the one 9": year period for the redemption of the properties in <uestion. 8n its &esolution dated 'arch 0=, "$$1, the )ourt of Appeals merely noted such 'otion for )larification since its ecision promulgated on 2eptember ,=, "$$# had already become final and executoryD ratiocinating thus7

We -iew the motion for 'larifi'ation filed by petitioner, purportedly signed by its proprietor, but whi'h we belie-e was prepared by a lawyer who wishes to hide under the 'loa? of anonymity, as a -eiled attempt to buy time and to delay further the disposition of this 'ase& Our de'ision of .eptember ,%, //0 ne-er dealt on the right and period of redemption of petitioner, but was merely 'ir'ums'ribed to the @uestion of whether respondent judge 'ould issue a writ of e6e'ution in its 2i-il 2ase ;o& #/=$0)0 666& We further ruled that the one=hundred fifty day period within whi'h petitioner may e6er'ise its e@uity of redemption should be 'ounted, not from the re'eipt of respondent 'ourt of the re'ords of 2i-il 2ase ;o& #/=$0)0 but from the date petitioner was notified of the entry of judgment made by the appellate 'ourt& Aut we ne-er made any pronoun'ement on the one= year right of redemption of petitioner be'ause, in the first pla'e, the fore'losure in this 'ase is judi'ial, and as su'h, the mortgagor has only the e@uity, not the right of redemption 666& While it may be true that under .e'tion B# of R&3& ,,B as amended, otherwise ?nown as the :eneral Aan?ing 3't, a mortgagor of a ban?, ban?ing or 'redit institution, whether the fore'losure was donejudi'ially or e6trajudi'ially, has a period of one year from the au'tion sale within whi'h to redeem the fore'losed property, the @uestion of whether the .yndi'ated <anagement :roup, 4n'&, is a ban? or 'redit institution was ne-er brought before us s@uarely, and it is indeed odd and strange that petitioner would now sar'asti'ally as? a rhetori'al @uestion in its motion for 'larifi'ation&7 (>nders'oring supplied!&
8,9

8ndeed, if petitioner did really act in good faith, it would have ventilated before the )ourt of Appeals in )A*+.&. !o. ,1=-% its pretended right under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,( but it never did so. At the earliest opportunity, when it filed its answer to the complaint for judicial foreclosure, petitioner should have averred in its pleading that it was entitled to the beneficial provisions of 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,(D but again, petitioner did not make any such allegation in its answer.

;rom the said &esolution, petitioner took no further step such that on 'arch ,", "$$1, the private respondent filed a 'otion for 8ssuance of Brit of Possession with the trial court. uring the hearing called on April 0", "$$1, the counsel of record of petitioner entered appearance and asked for time to interpose opposition to the 'otion for 8ssuance of FBrit of Possession. .n 'ay 0, "$$1, in opposition to private respondentGs 'otion for 8ssuance of Fwrit of Possession, petitioner filed a 5'otion to )ompel Private &espondent to Accept &edemption.6 8t was the first time petitioner ever asserted the right to redeem subject properties under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,(, the +eneral 4anking ActD theoriEing that the original mortgagee, being a credit institution, its assignment of the mortgage credit to petitioner did not remove petitioner from the coverage of 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,(. 3herefore, it should have the right to redeem subject properties within one year from registration of the auction sale, theoriEed the petitioner which concluded that in view of its 5right of redemption,6 the issuance of the titles over subject parcels of land to the private respondent was irregular and premature. 8n its .rder of /uly 0", "$$1, the trial court, presided over by /udge !apoleon 8noturan, denied private respondentGs motion for a writ of possession, opining that 2ection (- of the +eneral 4anking Act was applicable and therefore, the petitioner had until .ctober 0", "$$1 to redeem the said parcels of land, said .rder ruled as follows7

4t is undisputed that 4nter'on is a 'redit institution from whi'h defendant obtained a loan se'ured with a real estate mortgage o-er four (0! par'els of land& 3ssuming that the mortgage debt had not been assigned to plaintiff, there is then no @uestion that defendant would ha-e a right of redemption in 'ase of fore'losure, judi'ially or e6trajudi'ially, pursuant to the abo-e @uoted .e'tion B# of R3 ,,B, as amended& Howe-er, the pi-otal issue here is whether or not the defendant lost its right of redemption by -irtue of the assignment of its mortgage debt by 4nter'on to plaintiff, whi'h is not a ban? or 'redit institution& Che issue is resol-ed in the negati-e& Che right of redemption in this 'ase is -ested by law and is therefore an absolute pri-ilege whi'h defendant may not lose e-en though plaintiff=assignee is not a ban? or 'redit institution (Tolentino versus Court of Appeals, %* .2R3 $ ,!& 4ndeed, a 'ontrary ruling will lead to a possible 'ir'um-ention of .e'tion B# be'ause all that may be needed to depri-e a defaulting mortgagor of his right of redemption is to assign his mortgage debt from a ban? or 'redit institution to one whi'h is not& "rote'tion of defaulting mortgagors, whi'h is the a-owed poli'y behind the pro-ision, would not be a'hie-ed if the ruling were otherwise& 2onse@uently, defendant still possesses its right of redemption whi'h it may e6er'ise up to O'tober ) , //$ only, whi'h is one year from the date of registration of the 'ertifi'ate of sale of subje't properties ( GSIS versus Iloilo, B$ .2R3 /, 'iting Limpin versus IAC, ** .2R3 #B!&

.in'e the period to e6er'ise defendant1s right of redemption has not yet e6pired, the 'an'ellation of defendant1s transfer 'ertifi'ates of title and the issuan'e of new ones in lieu thereof in fa-or of plaintiff are therefore illegal for being premature, thereby ne'essitating re'on-eyan'e (see .e'& *, (a! "D $)/, as amended!& WHEREFORE, the 2ourt hereby rules as follows: ( ! Che <otion for 4ssuan'e of Writ of "ossession is hereby denied( ()! "laintiff is dire'ted to a''ept the redemption on or before O'tober ) , //$ in an amount 'omputed a''ording to the terms stated in the Writ of E6e'ution dated Euly $, //0 plus all other related 'osts and e6penses mentioned under .e'tion B#, R3 ,,B, as amended( and (,! Che Register of Deeds of Falen5uela, Aula'an is dire'ted (a! to re'on-ey to the defendant the following titles of the four (0! par'els of land, namely C2C ;os& F= ,##B#, F=,##B/, F=,###%, and F=,### , now in the name of plaintiff, and (b! to register the 'ertifi'ate of sale dated O'tober B, //0 and the Order 'onfirming the sale dated February %, //$ by a brief memorandum thereof upon the transfer 'ertifi'ates of title to be issued in the name of defendant, pursuant to .e'& *, (a! "D $)/, as amended& Che Omnibus <otion dated Eune $, //$, together with the Opposition thereto, is now deemed resol-ed& .O ORDERED&7
809

Private respondent interposed a 'otion for &econsideration seeking the reversal of the .rder but to no avail. 8n its .rder dated 2eptember #, "$$1, the trial court denied the same. 3o attack and challenge the aforesaid order of /uly 0", "$$1 and subse<uent .rder of 2eptember #, "$$1 of the trial court, the private respondent filed with this court a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and 'andamus, docketed as +.&. !o. "0"-$,, but absent any special and cogent reason shown for entertaining the same, the )ourt referred the petition to the )ourt of Appeals, for proper determination. ocketed as +.&. !o. ,-(#1( on !ovember "#, "$$%, the )ourt of Appeals gave due course to the petition and set aside the trial court>s .rder dated /uly 0", "$$1 and .rder dated 2eptember #, "$$1. 8n its &esolution of 'arch "", "$$(, the )ourt of Appeals denied petitioner>s 'otion for &econsideration of the ecision promulgated on !ovember "#, "$$% in )A*+.&. !o. ,-(#(.

Undaunted, petitioner has come to this )ourt via the present petition, placing reliance on the assignment of errors, that7

CHE RE."O;DE;C 2O>RC OF 3""E3G. ERRED :R3FEGH 4; HOGD4;: CH3C CHE 2O>RC OF 3""E3G. (CWEGFCH D4F4.4O;! 4; 23 :&R& ." ;O& ,$%#* H3D RE.OGFED WITH FI ALIT!" CH3C "EC4C4O;ER H>ERC3 3GA3 H3D ;O R4:HC OF REDE<"C4O; A>C O;GH CHE EI>4CH OF REDE<"C4O;&

CHE RE."O;DE;C 2O>RC OF 3""E3G. ERRED :R3FEGH 4; 4:;OR4;: CH3C "EC4C4O;ER H>ERC3 3GA3 "O..E..E. CHE O;E= HE3R R4:HC OF REDE<"C4O; >;DER .E2C4O; B#, R&3& ;O& ,,B (CHE :E;ER3G A3;J4;: 32C!&

CHE RE."O;DE;C 2O>RC OF 3""E3G. ERRED :R3FEGH 4; HOGD4;: CH3C "R4F3CE RE."O;DE;C .H;D423CED <3;3:E<E;C :RO>", 4;2& 4. E;C4CGED CO CHE 4..>3;2E OF 3 WR4C OF "O..E..4O; OFER CHE .>AEE2C "RO"ERCH&
8$9

8n its comment on the petition, private respondent countered that7

3& CHE HO;OR3AGE 2O>RC OF 3""E3G. 2ORRE2CGH HEGD CH3C 4C RE.OGFED W4CH F4;3G4CH 4; 2&3&=:&R& ." ;O& ,$%#* CH3C "EC4C4O;ER O;GH H3D CHE R4:HC OF REDE<"C4O; 4; RE."E2C OF CHE .>AEE2C "RO"ERC4E.& A& CHE "EC4C4O; 4. 3; 4;.4D4O>. 3;D >;DERH3;DED 3CCE<"C CO EF3DE CHE F4;3G4CH OF F3R4O>. DE24.4O;., RE.OG>C4O;. 3;D ORDER. WH42H HEGD CH3C "EC4C4O;ER O;GH "O..E..E. CHE EI>4CH OF REDE<"C4O; 4; RE."E2C OF CHE .>AEE2C "RO"ERC4E.& 2& "EC4C4O;ER 4. A3RRED AH E.CO""EG FRO< AEG3CEDGH R34.4;: CHE 4..>E OF 4C. 3GGE:ED KR4:HC OF REDE<"C4O;&1 D& 4; HOGD4;: CH3C CHE "EC4C4O;ER H3D CHE KR4:HC OF REDE<"C4O;1 OFER CHE .>AEE2C "RO"ERC4E., CHE CR43G 2O>RC <3DE 3 <O2JERH OF CHE KG3W OF CHE 23.E&17
8*9

And by way of &eply, petitioner argued, that7

.

CHE 2O>RC OF 3""E3G. 4; 23 :&R& ." ;O& ,$%#* 2O>GD ;OC H3FE "O..4AGH RE.OGFED CHERE4; = WHECHER W4CH F4;3G4CH OR OCHERW4.E = CHE 4..>E OF "EC4C4O;ER H>ERC3 3GA31. R4:HC OF REDE<"C4O; >;DER .E2C4O; B#, R&3& ;O& ,,B&
.

CHERE 4. ;O E.CO""EG HERE& "EC4C4O;ER H>ERC3 3GA3 4;FOJED 4C. R4:HC OF REDE<"C4O; >;DER .E2C4O; B#, R&3& ;O& ,,B 4; C4<EGH F3.H4O;, i&e&, 3FCER 2O;F4R<3C4O; AH CHE 2O>RC OF CHE FORE2GO.>RE .3GE, 3;D W4CH4; O;E ( ! HE3R FRO< CHE D3CE OF RE:4.CR3C4O; OF CHE 2ERC4F423CE OF .3GE&
.

CHE "R4;24"GE OF KCHE G3W OF CHE 23.E1 H3. 3A.OG>CEGH ;O AE3R4;: HERE:
.1/

CHE R4:HC OF REDE<"C4O; >;DER .E2C4O; B#, R&3& ;O& ,,B 4. 4; F32C "RED423CED >"O; CHE F4;3G4CH 3;D 2ORRE2C;E.. OF CHE DE24.4O; 4; 24F4G 23.E ;O& #/=$0)0&
.2/

CH>., CHE RC21. ORDER RE2O:;4L4;: "EC4C4O;ER H>ERC3 3GA31. R4:HC OF REDE<"C4O; >;DER .E2C4O; B#, R&3& ;O& ,B DOE. ;OC 4; 3;H W3H H3FE CHE EFFE2C OF 3<E;D4;:, <OD4FH4;:, OR .ECC4;: 3.4DE CHE DE24.4O; 4; 24F4G 23.E ;O& #/=$0)0&
3he above arguments and counter*arguments advanced relate to the pivotal issue of whether or not the petitioner has the one*year right of redemption of subject properties under 2ection (- of &epublic Act !o. ,,( otherwise known as the +eneral 4anking Act. 3he petition is not visited by merit. Petitioner>s assertion of right of redemption under 2ection (- of &epublic Act !o. ,,( is premised on the submission that the )ourt of Appeals did not resolve such issue in )A*+.&. 2P !o. ,1=-%D contending thus7
.1/

AH ;O .CREC2H OF GO:42 23; CHE )% <3R2H //$ RE.OG>C4O; 4; 23 :&R& ." ;O& ,$%#* AE 4;CER"RECED CO <E3; CHE 2O>RC OF 3""E3G. H3D RE.OGFED KW4CH F4;3G4CH1 CHE 4..>E OF WHECHER "EC4C4O;ER H>ERC3 3GA3 H3D CHE R4:HC OF REDE<"C4O; WHE; 3GG CH3C CHE RE.OG>C4O; D4D W3. CO <EREGH #T$ CHE <OC4O; FOR 2G3R4F423C4O;&
.2/

CHE )% <3R2H //$ RE.OG>C4O; 4; 23 :&R& ." ;O& ,$%#* 4. ;OC 3 F4;3G E>D:<E;C, ORDER OR DE2REE& 4C 4. ;OC EFE; 3 E>D:<E;C OR ORDER CO AE:4; W4CH& 4C ORDER. ;OCH4;:( 4C 3DE>D423CE. ;OCH4;:&
.0/

"EC4C4O;ER H>ERC3 3GA31. R4:HC OF REDE<"C4O; >;DER .E2C4O; B#, R&3& ;O& ,B W3. ;OC 3; 4..>E 3;D W3. ;OC 4; 4..>E, 3;D 2O>GD ;OC H3FE "O..4AGH AEE; 3; 4..>E ;OR 4; 4..>E, 4; 23 :&R& ." ;O& ,$%#*&
.1/

CHE ,% .E"CE<AER //0 DE24.4O; 4; 23 :&R& ." ;O& ,$%#* H3F4;: 3GRE3DH AE2O<E F4;3G EFE; AEFORE CHE F4G4;: OF CHE <OC4O; FOR 2G3R4F423C4O;, CHE 2O>RC OF 3""E3G. ;O GO;:ER H3D 3;H E>R4.D42C4O; CO 32C OF CHE <OC4O; OR 3;H OCHER <3CCER 4; 23 :&R& ." ;O& ,$%#*, EM2E"C CO <EREGH ;OCE CHE <OC4O;&
.

4; .C3RJ 2O;CR3.C, CHE 4..>E OF "EC4C4O;ER H>ERC3 3GA31. R4:HC OF REDE<"C4O; >;DER .E2C4O; B#, R&3& ;O& ,,B W3. D4RE2CGH R34.ED 3;D EO4;ED AH CHE "3RC4E., 3;D CHE .3<E D>GH RE.OGFED AH CHE CR43G 2O>RC&
.

CHE R4:HC OF REDE<"C4O; >;DER .E2C4O; B# OF R&3& ;O& ,,B 4. <3;D3CORH 3;D 3>CO<3C423GGH EM4.C. AH G3W& CHE 2O>RC. 3RE D>CH=AO>;D CO RE2O:;4LE .>2H R4:HC&
2.

EI>4C3AGE 2O;.4DER3C4O;. WE4:H HE3F4GH 4; F3FOR OF "EC4C4O;ER H>ERC3 3GA3, ;OC CHE GE3.C OF WH42H 4. CHE WEGG=.ECCGED "OG42H OF CHE G3W CO 34D R3CHER CH3; DEFE3C CHE R4:HC OF REDE<"C4O;&
2.

CHEREFORE CHE ) E>GH //$ 3;D %0 .E"CE<AER //$ ORDER. OF CHE CR43G 2O>RC 3RE F3G4D 3;D "RO"ER 4; 322ORD3;2E W4CH CHE <3;D3CE OF CHE G3W&
;rom the various decisions, resolutions and orders a quo it can be gleaned that what petitioner has been adjudged to have was only the e<uity of redemption over subject properties. .n the distinction between the e<uity of redemption and right of redemption, the case of Gregorio Y. Limpin vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, comes to the fore. Celd the )ourt in the said case7
H(I

Che e%uity of redemption is, to be sure, different from and should not be 'onfused with the rig&t of redemption& Che rig&t of redemption in relation to a mortgage = understood in the sense of a prerogati-e to re=a'@uire mortgaged property after registration of the fore'losure sale = e6ists only in the 'ase of the e'trajudi(ialfore'losure of the mortgage& ;o su'h right is re'ogni5ed in a judi(ial fore'losure e6'ept only where the mortgagee is the "hilippine ;ational Aan? or a ban? or ban?ing institution& Where a mortgage is fore(losed e'trajudi(ially, 3't , ,$ grants to the mortgagor the right of redemption within one ( ! year from the registration of the sheriff1s 'ertifi'ate of fore'losure sale& Where the fore(losure is judi(ially effe(ted, howe-er, no e@ui-alent right of redemption e6ists& Che law de'lares that a judi'ial fore'losure sale, Kwhen 'onfirmed by an order of the 'ourt, 6 6 shall operate to di-est the rights of all the parties to the a'tion and to -est their rights in the pur'haser, su)je(t to su(& rig&ts of redemption as may )e allo*ed )y la*+, .u'h rights e6'eptionally Kallowed by law1 (i&e&, e-en after 'onfirmation by an order of the 'ourt! are those granted by the 'harter of the "hilippine ;ational Aan? (3'ts ;o& )B0B and )/,#!, and the :eneral Aan?ing 3't (R&3& ,,B!& Chese laws 'onfer on the mortgagor, his su''essors in interest or any judgment 'reditor of the mortgagor, the right to redeem the property sold on fore'losure = after (onfirmation )y t&e (ourt of t&e fore(losure sale = whi'h right may be e6er'ised within a period of one ( ! year, 'ounted from the date of registration of the 'ertifi'ate of sale in the Registry of "roperty&

Aut, to repeat, no su'h right of redemption e6ists in 'ase of judi'ial fore'losure of a mortgage if the mortgagee is not the ";A or a ban? or ban?ing institution& 4n su'h a 'ase, the fore'losure sale, Kwhen 'onfirmed by an order of the 'ourt& 6 6 shall operate to di-est the rights of all the parties to the a'tion and to -est their rights in the pur'haser&1 Chere then e6ists only what is ?nown as the e%uity of redemption+ Chis is simply the right of the defendant mortgagor to e6tinguish the mortgage and retain ownership of the property by paying the se'ured debt within the /%=day period after the judgment be'omes final, in a''ordan'e with Rule *#, or e-en after the fore'losure sale but prior to its 'onfirmation& .e'tion ), Rule *# pro-ides that = K 6 6 4f upon the trial 6 6 the 'ourt shall find the fa'ts set forth in the 'omplaint to be true, it shall as'ertain the amount due to the plaintiff upon the mortgage debt or obligation, in'luding interest and 'osts, and shall render judgment for the sum so found due and order the same to be paid into 'ourt within a period of not less than ninety -./0 days from t&e date of t&e servi(e of su(& order, and that in default of su'h payment the property be sold to reali5e the mortgage debt and 'osts&1 Chis is the mortgagor1s e%uity -not rig&t0 of redemption whi'h, as abo-e stated, may be e6er'ised by him e-en beyond the /%=day period Kfrom the date of ser-i'e of the order,1 and e-en after the fore'losure sale itself, pro-ided it be before the order of 'onfirmation of the sale& 3fter su'h order of 'onfirmation, no redemption 'an be effe'ted any longer&7 (>nders'oring supplied!
8#9

Petitioner failed to seasonably invoke its purported right under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,(. Petitioner avers in its petition that the 8ntercom, predecessor in interest of the private respondent, is a credit institution, such that 2ection (- of &epublic Act !o. ,,( should apply in this case.2tated differently, it is the submission of petitioner that it should be allowed to redeem subject properties within one year from the date of sale as a result of the foreclosure of the mortgage constituted thereon. 3he pivot of in<uiry here therefore, is whether the petitioner seasonably invoked its asserted right under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,( to redeem subject properties. Petitioner theoriEes that it invoked its JrightJ in Jtimely fashionJ, that is, after confirmation by the court of the foreclosure sale, and within one 9": year from the date of registration of the certificate of sale. 8ndeed, the facts show that it was only on 'ay 0, "$$1 when, in opposition to the 'otion for 8ssuance of Brit of Possession, did petitioner file a 'otion to )ompel Private &espondent to Accept &edemption, invoking for the very first time its alleged right to redeem subject properties under to 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,(.

8n light of the aforestated facts, it was too late in the day for petitioner to invoke a right to redeem under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,(. Petitioner failed to assert a right to redeem in several crucial stages of the Proceedings. ;or instance, on 2eptember (, "$$#, when it filed with the trial court an @x*part 'otion for )larification, petitioner failed to allege and prove that private respondentKs predecessor in interest was a credit institution and therefore, 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,( was applicable. Petitioner merely asked the trial court to clarify whether the sale of subject properties was execution sale or judicial foreclosure sale. 2o also, when it presented before the trial court an @xception to the .rder and 'otion to 2et Aside 2aid .rder dated .ctober ",, "$$#, petitioner again was silent on its alleged right under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,(, even as it failed to show that private respondentKs predecessor in interest is a credit institution. Petitioner just argued that the aforementioned .rder materially altered the trial courtKs ecision of April ,=, "$$0. 3hen, too, nothing was heard from petitioner on its alleged right under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,( and of the predecessor in interest of private respondent as a credit institution, when the trial court came out with an order on ;ebruary "=, "$$1, confirming the sale of subject properties in favor of private respondent and declaring that all pending incidents with respect to the .rder dated 2eptember 0%, "$$# had become moot and academic. 2imilarly, when petitioner filed on ;ebruary 0(, "$$1 a 'otion for )larification with the )ourt of Appeals, seeking JclarificationJ of the date of commencement of the one 9": year redemption period for the subject properties, petitioner never intimated any alleged right under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,( nor did it invite attention to its present stance that private respondentKs predecessor*in*interest was a credit institution. )onse<uently, in its &esolution dated 'arch 0=, "$$1, the )ourt of Appeals ruled on the said motion thus7

Aut we ne-er made any pronoun'ement on the one=year right of redemption of petitioner be'ause, in the first pla'e, the fore'losure in this 'ase is judi'ial, and as su'h, the mortgagor has only the e@uity, not the right of redemption 666& While it may be true that under .e'tion B# of R&3& ,,B as amended, otherwise ?nown as the :eneral Aan?ing 3't, a mortgagor of a ban?, ban?ing or 'redit institution, whether the fore'losure was donejudi'ially or e6trajudi'ially, has a period of one year from the au'tion sale within whi'h to redeem the fore'losed property, the @uestion of whether the .yndi'ated <anagement :roup, 4n'&, is ban? or 'redit institution was ne-er brought before us s@uarely, and it is indeed odd and strange that petitioner would now sar'asti'ally as? a rhetori'al @uestion in its motion for 'larifi'ation&7 (>nders'oring supplied!&
8/9

8f petitioner were really acting in good faith, it would have ventilated before the )ourt of Appeals in )A*+.&. !o. ,1=-% its alleged right under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,(D but petitioner never did do so.

8ndeed, at the earliest opportunity, when it submitted its answer to the complaint for judicial foreclosure, petitioner should have alleged that it was entitled to the beneficial provisions of 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,( but again, it did not make any allegation in its answer regarding any right thereunder. 8t bears stressing that the applicability of 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,( hinges on the factual <uestion of whether or not private respondent>s predecessor in interest was a credit institution. As was held in Limpin, a judicial foreclosure sale, 5when confirmed by an order of the court, xx shall operate to divest the rights of all the parties to the action and to vest their rights in the purchaser, subject to such rights of redemption as may be allo ed by la >,6 which confer on the mortgagor, his successors in interest or any judgment creditor of the mortgagor, the right to redeem the property sold on foreclosure after confirmation by the court of the judicial foreclosure sale.3hus, the claim that petitioner is entitled to the beneficial provisions of 2ection (of &.A. !o. ,,( * since private respondent>s predecessor*in*interest is a credit institution * is in the nature of a compulsory counterclaim which should have been averred in petitioner>s answer to the compliant for judicial foreclosure.
H"=I

666 3 'ounter'laim is, most broadly, a 'ause of a'tion e6isting in fa-or of the defendant against the plaintiff& <ore narrowly, it is a 'laim whi'h, if established, will defeat or in some way @ualify a judgment or relief to whi'h plaintiff is otherwise entitled& 4t is sometimes defined as any 'ause of a'tion arising in 'ontra't a-ailable against any a'tion also arising in 'ontra't and e6isting at the time of the 'ommen'ement of su'h an a'tion& 4t is fre@uently defined by the 'odes as a 'ause of a'tion arising out of the 'ontra't or transa'tion set forth in the 'omplaint as the foundation of the plaintiff1s 'laim, or 'onne'ted with the subje't of the a'tion&7 (unders'oring supplied!
8 9

Che 'ounter'laim is in itself a distin't and independent 'ause of a'tion, so that when properly stated as su'h, the defendant be'omes, in respe't to the matters stated by him, an a'tor, and there are two simultaneous a'tions pending between the same parties, wherein ea'h is at the same time both a plaintiff and a defendant& 2ounter'laim is an offensi-e as well as a defensi-e plea and is not ne'essarily 'onfined to the justi'e of the plaintiff1s 'laim&4t represents the right of the defendant to ha-e the 'laims of the parties 'ounterbalan'ed in whole or in part, and judgment to be entered in e6'ess, if any& 3 'ounter'laim stands on the same footing, and is to be tested by the same rules, as if it were an independent a'tion&7 (unders'oring supplied!
8 )9

3he very purpose of a counterclaim would have been served had petitioner alleged in its answer its purported right under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,(7

666 Che rules of 'ounter'laim are designed to enable the disposition of a whole 'ontro-ersy of interested parties1 'onfli'ting 'laims, at one time and in one

a'tion, pro-ided all parties1 be brought before the 'ourt and the matter de'ided without prejudi'ing the rights of any party&7
8 ,9

3he failure of petitioner to seasonably assert its alleged right under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,( precludes it from so doing at this late stage of the case. @stoppel may be successfully invoked if the party fails to raise the <uestion in the early stages of the proceedings. 3hus, 5a party to a case who failed to invoked his claim in the main case, while having the opportunity to do so, will be precluded, subse<uently, from invoking his claim, even if it were true, after the decision has become final, otherwise the judgment may be reduced to a mockery and the administration of justice may be placed in disrepute.6
H"#I H"1I

All things viewed in proper perspective, it is decisively clear that the trial court erred in still allowing petitioner to introduce evidence that private respondent>s predecessor* in*interest was a credit institution, and to thereafter rule that the petitioner was entitled to avail of the provisions of 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,(. 8n effect, the trial court permitted the petitioner to accomplish what the latter failed to do before the )ourt of Appeals, that is, to invoke its alleged right under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,( although the )ourt of Appeals in )A*+.&. no. ,1=-% already found that Gthe <uestion of whether the 2yndicated 'anagement )ouncil +roup, 8nc. is a bank or credit institution was never brought before 9the )ourt of Appeals: s<uarely.6 3he said pronouncement by the )ourt of Appeals unerringly signified that petitioner did not make a timely assertion of any right under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,( in all the stages of the proceedings below. ?erily, the petitioner has only itself to blame for not alleging at the outset that the predecessor*in*interest of the private respondent is a credit institution. 3hus, when the trial court, and the )ourt of Appeals repeatedly passed upon the issue of whether or not petitioner had the right of redemption or e<uity of redemption over subject properties in the decisions, resolutions and orders, particularly in )ivil )ase no. -$*1#0#, )A*+.&. )? !o. ,$0#,, )A*+.&. 2P !o. ,1=-%, and )A*+.&. 2P !o. ,-(#(, it was unmistakable that the petitioner was adjudged to just have the e<uity of redemption without any <ualification whatsoever, that is, without any right of redemption allowed by law.

Che law of 'ase7 holds that petitioner has the e@uity of redemption without any @ualifi'ation&
3here is, therefore, merit in private respondent>s contention that to allow petitioner to belatedly invoke its right under 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,( will disturb the 5law of the case.6 Cowever, private respondent>s statement of what constitutes the 5law of the case6 is not entirely accurate. 3he 5law of the case6 is not simply that the defendant possesses an e<uity of redemption. As the )ourt has stated, the 5law of the case6 holds that petitioner has the e<uity of the redemption without any <ualification whatsoever, that is, without the right of redemption afforded by 2ection (- of &.A. !o. ,,(. Bhether or not the 5law of the case6 is erroneous is immaterial, it still remains the 5law of the case6. A contrary rule will contradict both the letter and spirit of the rulings of the )ourt of Appeals in )A*+.&. 2P !o. ,1=-%, )A*+.&. )? !o. ,$0#,, and )A*+.&. ,-(#(,

which clearly saw through the repeated attempts of petitioner to forestall so simple a matter as making the security given for a just debt to answer for its payment. Cence, in conformity with the ruling in Limpin, the sale of the subject properties, as confirmed by the .rder dated ;ebruary "=, "$$1 of the trial court in )ivil )ase !o. -$* 1#0# operated to divest the rights of all the parties to the action and to vest their rights in private respondent. 3here then existed only what is known as the equity of redemption, which is simply the right of the petitioner to extinguish the mortgage and retain ownership of the property by paying the secured debt within the $=*day period after the judgment became final. 3here being an explicit finding on the part of the )ourt of Appeals in its ecision of 2eptember ,=, "$$# in )A*+.&. !o. ,1=-% * that the herein petitioner failed to exercise its e<uity of redemption within the prescribed period, redemption can no longer be effected. 3he confirmation of the sale and the issuance of the transfer certificates of title covering the subject properties to private respondent was then, in order. 3he trial court therefore, has the ministerial duty to place private respondent in the possession of subject properties. 3HERE"ORE, the petition is (EN E(, and the assailed decision of the )ourt of Appeals, declaring null and void the .rder dated 0" /uly "$$1 and .rder dated # 2eptember "$$( of the &egional 3rial )ourt of 'akati )ity in )ivil )ase !o. -$* 1#0#, A"" R)E(. !o pronouncement as to costs. SO OR(ERE(. !elo, "Chairman#, $itug, %anganiban, and Gon&aga'(eyes, ))., concur.