View full case

JAIME B. BIANA v. GEORGE GIMENEZ

FACTS:

The case involves a labor case filed by Santos B. Mendones against Gimenez Park Subdivision and George Gimenez. The defendants were ordered to pay Mendones a certain amount of money, as well as sheriff's fees and expenses of execution. Sheriff Renato Madera conducted an execution sale for the sale of four parcels of land owned by the defendants. Mendones won the execution sale and a Provisional Certificate of Sale was issued in his name.

Respondent George Gimenez claimed that he was not informed or notified of the execution sale and only learned about it when a representative of the sheriff asked him to pay the publication fee. Gimenez paid the full publication fee by issuing checks and was issued a receipt. He then approached Provincial Sheriff Manuel Garchitorena to pay the redemption price of the sold parcels of land. Garchitorena informed Gimenez of the balance, and Gimenez issued four checks to Garchitorena.

Sheriff Madera later wrote a letter informing Gimenez that there was still an unpaid balance. Gimenez disagreed with the itemization of the account and claimed that he had already paid the full cost of publication. Deputy Sheriff Madera executed a Definite Deed of Sale in favor of Mendones.

Gimenez requested Garchitorena to execute a deed of redemption, but his request was refused. Gimenez then filed a special civil action for mandamus with damages. The trial court ruled in favor of Gimenez, nullifying the Definite Deed of Sale and ordering the execution of a Deed of Redemption.

Mendones assigned his right over the land to petitioner Jaime Biana. Dissatisfied with the decision, petitioner and the Provincial Sheriff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision. Petitioner now seeks review before the Supreme Court, arguing several errors committed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

  1. Can the Provincial Sheriff of Camarines Sur be legally compelled to execute a deed of redemption in favor of respondent Gimenez?

  2. Is a mere tender of postdated checks sufficient to compel redemption?

  3. Whether or not the final confirmation of sale executed by the respondent should be declared null and void ab initio.

  4. Whether or not the award of moral damages and attorney's fees in favor of the respondent is proper.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the Provincial Sheriff can be legally compelled to execute a deed of redemption in favor of respondent Gimenez. The Court reasoned that the exercise of the right of redemption is a different matter from the payment of an obligation. While a check may not be used as payment of an obligation, it can be used for the exercise of the right of redemption. The Court cited the case of Fortunado vs. Court of Appeals which stated that the tender of a check is sufficient to compel redemption, but it does not relieve the redemptioner from his liability to pay the redemption price.

  2. The Court ruled that a mere tender of postdated checks is sufficient to compel redemption. The Court distinguished this case from the ruling in Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, where payment in a check issued in the name of an absconding sheriff did not operate as payment of the judgment obligation. The Court emphasized that the circumstances in the present case are different. There is no evidence that the sheriff absconded or disappeared with the checks in this case. Thus, the Court held that the checks tendered by the respondent are valid for the purpose of redemption.

  3. The Court held that if a final confirmation of sale was in fact executed by the respondent, the same should be declared null and void ab initio. The grant of the writ of mandamus commanding the execution of the Deed of Redemption requires the annulment of the Definite Deed of Sale in order to give effect to the judgment ordering the redemption. The Court ruled that not annulling the Definite Deed of Sale would render the mandamus a mere farce, thus it is necessary to declare it null and void to fulfill the purposes of the law.

  4. The Court affirmed the award of moral damages and attorney's fees in favor of the respondent. The petitioner, as the successor-in-interest of Santos Mendones, is bound by all the actions made by the latter. The original petition filed before the trial court included a prayer for moral damages and attorney's fees against Mendones. The Court found that the respondent had sufficiently established the factual basis for claiming moral damages and affirmed the trial court's award of damages and fees.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Tender of a check is sufficient to compel redemption, but it does not relieve the redemptioner from his liability to pay the redemption price.

  • A check may be used for the exercise of the right of redemption, as it is a right and not an obligation.

  • The Civil Code provisions on payment of obligations do not apply to the exercise of the right of redemption.

  • Mandamus is a remedy for official inaction and may not be available for the correction of acts already performed.

  • Mandamus can be used to compel the execution of a deed of redemption in favor of the redemptioner.

  • Annulling a Definite Deed of Sale is necessary to give effect to a judgment ordering the issuance of a Deed of Redemption.

  • The successor-in-interest is bound by the actions made by the predecessor-in-interest.

  • Moral damages may be granted based on mental anguish and humiliation suffered due to void or collusive acts.

  • Attorney's fees may be awarded if there is a factual basis and related expenses of litigation incurred.