G.R. No. 141855 Case Digest

G.R. No. 141855, February 6, 2001

Zacarias Cometa and Herco Realty & Agricultural Corp.

vs Court of Appeals and Jose Franco

Ponente: Ynares-Santiago

Facts:

CFI awarded to Cometa the sum of P57, 396.85 of which the sheriff levied on 3 commercial lots of Cometa located in Makati. 2 of the lots were sold to Franco at public auction.

Later, Herco Realty filed a civil case to annul the levy on execution and sale of the real properties alleging that the ownership of the lots had been transferred by Cometa to Herco before the execution of the sale. It also assailed the legality of the levy contending that the personal properties of Cometa must be exhausted first.

Meanwhile, the RTC Branch 60 issued an order directing the Register of Deeds to cancel the certificates of title of Cometa and to issue new ones in favor of Franco.

Issue: Whether the levy and sale is valid and proper. For if the respondent acquired no interest in the property by virtue of the levy and sale, then, he is not entitled to its possession.

Ruling:

There is no question that petitioners were remiss in attending with dispatch to the protection of their interests as regards the subject lots, and for that reason the case in the lower court was dismissed on a technicality and no definitive pronouncement on the inadequacy of the price paid for the levied properties was ever made. In this regard, it bears stressing that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantive rights as in this case. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only when for the most persuasive of reasons they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.

While there is no dispute that mere inadequacy of the price per se will not set aside a judicial sale of real property, nevertheless, where the inadequacy of the price is purely shocking to the conscience, such that the mind revolts at it and such that a reasonable man would neither directly or indirectly be likely to consent to it, the same will be set aside.

The subject lots were sold en masse, not separately as above provided. The unusually low price for which they were sold to the vendee, not to mention his vehement unwillingness to allow redemption therein, only serves to heighten the dubiousness of the transfer.

With regard to the applicability of prescription and laches, there can be no question that they operate as a bar in equity. However, it must be pointed out that the question of prescription or laches cannot work to defeat justice or to perpetrate fraud and injustice.

The rule on redemption is liberally construed in favor of the original owner of the property and the policy of the law is to aid rather than defeat him in the exercise of his right of redemption. Thus, we allowed parties in several cases to perfect their right of redemption even beyond the period prescribed therefore.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 25, 1999, which affirmed the trial court’s denial of petitioners right of redemption, as well as the subsequent Resolution dated January 27, 2000, in CA-G.R. SP No. 48227 entitled Zacarias Cometa, et al. v. Hon. Pedro Laggui, et al., are REVERSED and SET ASIDE; and another one hereby rendered ordering respondent Jose Franco to accept the tender of redemption made by petitioners and to deliver the proper certificate of redemption to the latter.