ROSALES V ALFONSO GR 137792 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; August 12, 2003

NATURE Petition for review on certiorari resolutions of CA (dismissing petition for certiorari of Sps. Rosales) FACTS - RTC declared Deed of Sale as equitable mortgage and ordered Macaspac and Jiao to execute reconveyance of property upon deposit by Sps Rosales of payment. If Rosales dont deposit, let property be sold in accordance with ROC for release of mortgage debt. This became final and executory. - Rosales failed to deposit, so Macaspac filed with RTC a motion for execution. Rosales filed opposition for being premature, asserting that the decision has not yet attained finality. RTC issued a writ of execution ordering the sale of the property for the satisfaction of the judgment. - in the auction sale, the property was sold for P285,000 to Sps. Alfonso. RTC issued order confirming the sale. Macaspac filed a motion praying for the release to him of the amount of P176,176.06 from the proceeds of the auction sale, prompting Rosales to file a motion praying that an independent certified public accountant be appointed to settle the exact amount due to Macaspac. Meanwhile, Sps. Alfonso filed motion for a writ of possession, contending that the order of confirmation of sale effectively cut off the Rosales equity of redemption. -RTC issued writ of possession and denied Rosales MFR (against the confirmation of sale). RTC ruled that Sps. Rosales had no right of redemption since case is for judicial foreclosure of Mortgage under R68 Rosales filed petition for certiorari with CA. CA dismissed outright (there is no right of redemption in case of judicial foreclosure of mortgage) Rosales: loan with Macaspac was unsecured, thus payment must be governed by R39,Sec.9 and sec.25 (execution of judgment for money and allowing the judgment debtor 1 year from date of registration of sale to redeem property) Alfonso: Rosales had no right to redeem property which had been judicially foreclosed ISSUE 1. WON there was a right to redeem in a judicial foreclosure HELD 1. NO Ratio R68, Sec.3 Sale of mortgaged property, effect. When the defendant fails to pay the amount of the judgment within the period specified therein, the court, upon motion, shall order the property to be sold in the manner and under the provisions of Rule 39 and other regulations governing sales of real estate under execution. Such sale shall not effect the rights of persons holding prior encumbrances upon the property or a part thereof, and when confirmed by an order of the court, also upon motion, it shall operate to divest the rights in the property of all the parties to the action and to vest their rights in the purchaser, subject to such rights of redemption as may be allowed by law

Reasoning Huerta Alba v CA: right of redemption is not recognized in a judicial foreclosure, except only where the mortgagee is the Phil Natl Bank or a bank or banking institution. Such rights exceptionally allowed by law (i.e., even after the confirmation by an order of the court) are those granted by the charter of the PNB, and the General Banking Act (R.A.337). These laws confer on the mortgagor, his successors in interest or any judgment creditor of the mortgagor, the right to redeem the property sold on foreclosureafter confirmation by the court of the foreclosure salewhich right may be exercised within 1yr, counted from the date of registration of the certificate of sale in the Registry of Property. There then exists only what is known as the equity (not a right) of redemption. This is simply the right of the defendant mortgagor to extinguish the mortgage and retain ownership of the property by paying the secured debt within the 90-day period after the judgment becomes final Disposition Petition is denied. Decision affirmed