SUPREMME_ COURT

•
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE
\U
. an11a

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 26 June 2019 which reads as follows:

\\ GR. No. 211489 - REYNALDO TOLENTINO vs. BPI FAMILY BANK

X------------------------------------------. ----------" -·-----------------------------------X

Petitioner Reynaldo Tolentino charges the Court of Appeals with
indecisiveness or "flip-flopping" when on one hand, it ruled that as
assumptee o~ 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 oft.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
TCTNos. 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. ·
#'
(88)URES - more -
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 211489

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 triaf 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 othe1wise
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 fonn 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 m011gaged 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

I
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.

ti
(88)URES - more -
'•
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 211489

reneged o,n 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 ~eal 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

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.

(88)URES - more -
--i'
 •'
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 211489

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, cit,ing this or that
reason: he indubitably lacked the serious intent to actually redeem the
properties.

In fine, the Court of Appeals c01Tectly 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 inelevant 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,

MARIA~~~RFECTO
Division Clerk of~~ ",1/1.J
25 JUL 2019
By:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

9 GE Money Bank, Inc. (formerly Keppel Bank Philippines, Inc) v. Spouses Victorino A{ Dizon and
Rosalina Dizon, 756 Phil. 502, 513 (2015).

(88)URES - more -
..

ATTY. CONRADO C. MARQUEZ (reg)

Counsel for Petitioner
#9 San Francisco Street
SAV 10, Parafiaque City

BENEDICTO AND BURKLEY LAW OFFICES (reg)

Counsel for Respondent
14th Floor, BPI Buildqig .
Ayala Avenue comer Paseo de Roxas
1225 Makati City

HON. PRESIDING JUDGE (reg)

Regional Trial Court, Branch 195
Parafiaque City
(Civil Case No. 03-0168)

JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)

Supreme Court, Manila

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)

LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)

OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x)
Supreme Court, Manila

COURT OF APPEALS (x)

Ma. Orosa Street
Ermita, I 000 Manila
CA G.R. CV No. 93095

Please notify the Court of any change in your address. ·•

GR211489. 6/26/2019(88)URES

rJfP-iltJ