ZACARIAS COMETA and HERCO REALTY & AGRICULTURAL

CORPORATION, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE FRANCO, respondents.

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

Facts:

A suit for damages was filed by private respondent Jose Franco before the Court of First
Instance. In the said case, CFI awarded respondent Franco. The judgment became final and a
writ of execution was issued on March 9, 1978. Thereafter, the sheriff levied on execution three
commercial lots of petitioner Cometa and sold it at public auction. Petitioner Herco Realty and
Agri Development Corporation filed with the same Branch CFI an action to annul the levy on
execution and sale at public auction of the real properties. Petitioner alleged that it owned the
lots in question, and was validly transferred to it by Cometa before the execution and sale at
public auction. The trial court ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel the title of Cometa and
issue new titles in favor of respondent Franco Pursuant to the trial court order, respondent Franco
filed with the RTC a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. The petitioner opposed the
motion on the ground that there is pending before another Regional Trial Court an action for the
annulment of the levy and sale of the properties in question. TC issued an order granting the writ
of possession, but the same was reconsidered and ruled that the grant of writ of possession was
premature. Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the TC ruled in favor of respondent and
granted the writ of possession. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether the petitioners can still redeem the properties subject of this litigation.

Ruling:

The legal perspective within which the right to redeem can still be availed of or not must be
viewed in the light of the dictum that the policy of the law is to aid rather than defeat the right of
redemption. In short, the statute, being remedial, is to be construed liberally to effectuate the
remedy and carry out its evident spirit and purpose. Thus, the Court allowed parties in several
cases to perfect their right of redemption even beyond the period prescribed therefor. We can do
no less vis-à-vis the prevailing facts of this case

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

Petitioners have demonstrated, albeit tardily, an earnest and sincere desire to redeem the subject
properties when Cometa's heirs, on December 4, 1997, consigned with the Office of the Clerk of
Court, RTC Makati, the sum of P38,761.05 as purchase price for the lots, plus interest of
P78,762.69 and P1,175.25 as realty tax. 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 therefor.

Doctrine:

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.
The right of redemption in execution sales should be exercised within twelve months from the
registration of the sale. However, the court has the power to interpret the law in a manner that
reflects the will of the legislature and promotes justice. Procedural rules should not be applied in
a rigid and technical sense if doing so would result in an injustice. The court must balance the
letter and spirit of the law to achieve a just resolution.