Sps. Yap vs. Sps. Dy, et al. (GR No.

171868 In August 1983 (within the redemption period), the Sps.

Yap filed a
–
Motion for Writ of Possession
July 27, 2011)DRBI vs. Sps. Dy, et al. (GR No. 171991)
alleging thathave acquired all the rights and interests of
Facts: DRBI over the foreclosed and the immediate possession of
Sps. Tirambulo are the registered owners of several parcels thesame because the 1-yr redemption period had lapsed without any
of land in Negros Oriental (Lots 1,3,4,5,6,8 and846). In 1976, redemption being made. Upon motion of theYaps, it was ordered
they executed a Real Estate Mortgage over Lots 1,4,5,6 and withdrawn for unknown reason. However, 3 days later, the
8 in favor of Rural Bank ofDumaguete, Inc. (Now Yaps again filed the saidmotion, which was granted by the
Dumaguete Rural Bank, Inc. trial court, consequently, a Writ of Possession over Lots 1,

– 3

DRBI) to secure a P105,000 loan. Later, they obtained and 6 was issuedin favor of the Yaps.Before the expiration of
asecond loan for P28,000 and also executed a Real Estate the redemption period, the Dys and Maxinos attempted to
Mortgage over Lots 3 and 846 in favor of the redeem Lots 1, 3 and 6 forP40,000 but DRBI and Yaps
samebank.Subsequently, the Tirambulos sold all the mortgaged refused, contending that the redemption should be for the
properties to Sps. Dy and Sps. Maxinos without theconsent of DRBI. full amount of thewinning bid of P216,040.93 plus interest
Upon default of the Tirambulos to pay their loans to DRBI, for all the foreclosed properties. Thus, the Dys and the
the latter extrajudicially foreclosedthe first mortgage and Maxinos went to
sold Lots 1,4,5,6 and 8 at public auction, wherein the DRBI the office of the sheriff and paid P50,625.29 (40,000
was proclaimed the highestbidder and bought said lots for
principal + 10,625.29 interests and sheriff’s commission) to
P216,040.93. The
effect the redemption. A Certificate of Redemption was
Certificate of Sale issued for Lots 1 and 6 only stating that
states that Lot 3 is notincluded in the foreclosure proceedings.
“ Atty. Diputado (Clerk of Court and Provincial Sheriff) duly
the sale is subject to therights of redemption of the notifiedthe Yaps of the said redemption and the non-
mortgagor(s) or any other persons authorized by law to do inclusion of Lot 3 among the foreclosed properties.
so, within a period of one (1) year from registration hereof However, in aletter to Atty. Diputado from the Yaps, they
.” refused to take delivery of the redemption price arguing
thatone of the characteristics of a mortgage is its
However, the Certificate of Sale was not registered indivisibility and that one cannot redeem only some of
untilalmost a year later, or on June 24, 1983.Days after the thelots foreclosed because all the parcels were sold for a
registration, the DRBI sold Lots 1, single price at the auction sale.

and 6 to Sps. Yap under a Deed of Sale with Agreement

toMortgage.
The Dys and the Maxinos filed a complaint for accounting,
NOTE: Lot 3 was not among the foreclosed properties injunction, declaration of nullity (for Lot 3) ofthe Deed of
bought by DRBI at public auction. Sale with Agreement to Mortgage, and damages

against the Yaps and DRBI. Thereafter, the

Dys and the Maxinos consigned to the trial court an from the auction sale. Aggrieved by the above ruling, the
additional sum of P83,850.50 + sheriff’s commission fee of Dys and the Maxinos elevated the case to CA, which
reversed the amendeddecision of the trial court, holding
P419.25 representing the remaining balance of the that the sale with respect to Lot 3 was null and void; the
purchase price that the Yaps still owed DRBI by virtue
redemption made bythe Dys and the Maxinos as valid; ordering the
of thesale to them by the DRBI of Lots 1, 3 and Yaps to deliver possession and ownership to the Dys andMaxinos and
6.Meanwhile, the Yaps told DRBI that no redemption has to tender and deliver the corresponding amount of income
been made by the Tirambulos or their successors-in-interest out of the 3 parcels until finality of judgment; and for DRBI
and requested DRBI to consolidate its title over the to pay damages to the Dys and the Maxinos. Further, the
foreclosed properties by requesting the ProvincialSheriff to CA also ruled that there is nonecessity in discussing the
execute the final deed of sale in favor of the bank so that
validity of the redemption
the latter can transfer the titles of the twoforeclosed
properties to them. On the same date, they wrote the .
Maxinos that they were formally turning overthe possession
of Lot 3 to the Maxinos, and informed them that they It found that the bank was in bad faith and thereforecannot
intended to consolidate ownership over insist on the protection of the law regarding the need for
compliance with all the requirements for a validredemption
Lots 1 and 6 since there was no redemption as while estoppel and unjust enrichment operate against the
contemplated by law. Included in the letter was a Yaps who had already withdrawn theredemption money.On
liquidation ofthe copra proceeds harvested for Lots 1, 3 and MR of the Yaps, the CA amended its decision deleting the
6.Later, delivery of possession and ownership to the Dysand the
Maxinos, and the tendering of corresponding amount
the Yaps filed a case for consolidation of ownership, of income from the said parcels of land.Hence, the
annulment of certificate of redemption, anddamages
consolidated petitions assailing the appellate court’s
against the Dys, the Maxinos, the Provincial Sheriff and
decision.
DRBI.Both cases were tried jointly. The Yaps, through
counsel, filed a motion to withdraw from the provincial
sheriffthe redemption money amounting to P50,373.42,
which was granted by the court after presentation of the Issue:
SPAexecuted by Francisco Yap in favor of his brother, Whether or not the doctrine of indivisibility of mortgage is
Valiente Yap to receive the redemption money.The trial applicable in the case at bar
court rendered judgment in favor of the Yaps, dismissing
the compliant of Dy and Maxino spouses aswell as the Ruling:NO.
counterclaim of the bank and the Yaps for lack of factual
We cannot subscribe to the Yaps’ argument on the
and legal basis, while the Yaps case wasgranted, declaring
indivisibility of the
them as the exclusive owners of Lot 1 and 6, for failure of
the Dys and the Maxinos to redeemthe properties within 1 mortgage. As held in the caseof
year from the auction sale; and directing the provincial
sheriff to execute the Final Deedof Sale in favor of the bank, Philippine National Bank v. De los Reyes
and the latter to transfer the subject properties to the
,
Yaps.Upon motion of the DRBI, the trial court amended the
aforesaid decision declaring as null and void theCertificate [44]
of Redemption, the Deed of Sale made by Tirambulo and
Estorco in favor of the Dys and the Maxinoscovering all the the doctrine of indivisibility of mortgage does not apply
7 parcels of land in question; and declaring the Yaps as the once themortgage is extinguished by a complete
exclusive owners of Lot 1 and 6, forfailure of the Dys and foreclosure thereof as in the instant case. The Court
the Maxinos to redeem the properties within 1 year held:The parties were accordingly embroiled in a
hermeneutic disparity on their aforesaid partialpayment nor partial extinguishment of the obligation
contendingpositions. Yet, the rule on the indivisibility of to speak of. The aforesaid doctrine, whichis actually
mortgage finds no application to the case at bar.The intended for the protection of the mortgagee, specifically
particular provision of the Civil Code referred to provides: refers to the release of themortgage which secures the
satisfaction of the indebtedness and naturally presupposes
Art. 2089. that themortgage is existing
A pledge or mortgage is indivisible, even though the debt . Once the mortgage is extinguished by a complete
may bedivided among the successors in interest of the foreclosurethereof, said doctrine of indivisibility ceases to
debtor or of the creditor. apply since, with the full payment of thedebt, there is
Therefore, the debtor’s heir who has paid a part of the debt nothing more to secure
cannot ask for the .
proportionate extinguishment of the pledge or mortgage
[45]
as long as the debt isnot completely satisfied.
(Emphasis supplied.)Nothing in the law prohibits the
Neither can the creditor’s heir who received his share of the piecemeal redemption of properties sold at one foreclosure
debt retu proceeding. In fact,in several early cases decided by this
rn the pledge or cancel the mortgage, to the prejudice of Court, the right of the mortgagor or redemptioner to
the other heirs who have notbeen paid.From these redeem one or someof the foreclosed properties was
provisions is excepted the case in which, there being recognized.Clearly, the Dys and Maxinos can effect the
severalthings given in mortgage or pledge, each one of redemption of even only two of the five properties
these guarantees only adeterminate portion of the foreclosed. Andsince they can effect a partial redemption,
credit.The debtor, in this case, shall have a right to the they are not required to pay the P216,040.93 considering
extinguishment of the pledgeor mortgage as the portion of that it is thepurchase price for all the five properties
the debt for which each thing is speciallyanswerable is foreclosed.So what amount should the Dys and Maxinos pay
satisfied. in order for their redemption of the two properties be
deemedvalid considering that when the five properties
From the foregoing, it is apparent that what the law were auctioned, they were not separately valued?
proscribes is the foreclosure of only aportion of the
property or a number of the several properties mortgaged Contrary to the Yaps’ contention, the amount paid by the
corresponding to theunpaid portion of the debt where Dys and Maxinos within the redemption period
before foreclosure proceedings partial payment was made
bythe debtor on his total outstanding loan or obligation.
This also means that the debtor cannotask for the release of for theredemption of just two parcels of land was not only
any portion of the mortgaged property or of one or some of P40,000.00 but totaled to P134,223.92
the severallots mortgaged unless and until the loan thus,
secured has been fully paid, notwithstanding thefact that (P50,373.42paid on May 28, 1984 plus P83,850.50 paid on
there has been a partial fulfillment of the obligation. Hence, June 19, 1984). That is more than
it is provided that thedebtor who has paid a part of the debt 60% of the purchase pricefor the five foreclosed
cannot ask for the proportionate extinguishment of properties, to think the Dys and Maxinos were only
themortgage as long as the debt is not completely redeeming two properties.
satisfied.That the situation obtaining in the case at bar is
not within the purview of the aforesaid rule onindivisibility Wefind that it can be considered a sufficient amount if we
is obvious since the aggregate number of the lots which were to base the proper purchase price on the proportionof
comprise the collaterals forthe mortgage had already been the size of Lots 1 and 6 with the total size of the five
foreclosed and sold at public auction. There is no foreclosed properties, which had the following
respectivesizes:Lot 1 61,371 square metersLot 6 16,087 squ
are metersLot 5 2,900 square metersLot 4 27,875 square m
etersLot 8 39,888 square metersTOTAL 148,121 square metersT
he two subject properties to be redeemed, Lots 1 and 6,
have a total area of 77,458 square meters or roughly52% of
the total area of the foreclosed properties. Even with this
rough approximation, we rule that there is noreason to
invalidate the redemption of the Dys and Maxinos since
they tendered 60% of the total purchase pricefor properties
constituting only 52% of the total area. However, there is a
need to remand the case forcomputation of the pro-rata
value of Lots 1 and 6 based on their true values at that time
of redemption for thepurposes of determining if there is
any deficiency or overpayment on the part of the Dys and
Maxinos.

Disposition:

Petitions are DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED with

MODIFICATION that the case be

REMANDED

to trialcourt for computation of the pro-rata value of

properties covered by Lot 1 and 6 at the time of redemption
todetermine if there is a deficiency to be settled by or
overpayment to be refunded to respondent Spouses
ZosimoDy, Sr. and Natividad Chiu and Spouses Marcelino C. Maxino
and Remedios Lasola with regard to theredemption money they
paid