Scribd
Upload
100 views1 page

PG 10 #7 Natino vs. IAC

The document discusses the right to redeem property after a foreclosure sale. It states that the right to redeem becomes invalid once the redemption period expires. After expiry, the purchaser owns the property and is not obligated to accept redemption offers. They can choose to resell the property but are not bound by the original bid price and can set their own terms. The case summary discusses a loan taken by petitioners secured by a mortgage on property. The bank foreclosed and was the winning bidder when petitioners failed to repay the loan. Petitioners claimed an extension was granted to redeem but the bank denied this. The court found no evidence an extension was granted and that redemption attempts occurred after expiry of the redemption period

Uploaded by

Harry Dave Ocampo Pagaoa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100 views1 page

PG 10 #7 Natino vs. IAC

The document discusses the right to redeem property after a foreclosure sale. It states that the right to redeem becomes invalid once the redemption period expires. After expiry, the purchaser owns the property and is not obligated to accept redemption offers. They can choose to resell the property but are not bound by the original bid price and can set their own terms. The case summary discusses a loan taken by petitioners secured by a mortgage on property. The bank foreclosed and was the winning bidder when petitioners failed to repay the loan. Petitioners claimed an extension was granted to redeem but the bank denied this. The court found no evidence an extension was granted and that redemption attempts occurred after expiry of the redemption period

Uploaded by

Harry Dave Ocampo Pagaoa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

DOCTRINE: The right to redeem becomes functus oficio on the date of its expiry, and its

exercise after the period is not really one of redemption but a repurchase. Distinction must be
made because redemption is by force of law; the purchaser at public auction is bound to accept
redemption. Repurchase, however, of foreclosed property, after redemption period, imposes no
such obligation. After expiry, the purchaser may or may not re-sell the property but no law will
compel him to do so. And, he is not bound by the bid price; it is entirely within his discretion to
set a higher price, for after all, the property already belongs to him as owner.

SPOUSES TRINIDAD AND EPIFANIO NATINO vs. THE INTERMEDIATE


APPELLATE COURT, THE RURAL BANK OF AGUILAR, INC. AND THE
PROVINCIAL SHERIFF EX-OFFICIO OF PANGASINAN

G.R. No. 73573  May 23, 1991

FACTS:

On 12 October 1970 petitioners executed a real estate mortgage in favor of respondent bank as
security for a loan of P2,000.00. Petitioners failed to pay the loan on due date. The bank applied for the
extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. At the foreclosure sale on 11 December 1974 the respondent
bank was the highest and winning bidder with a bid of P2,945.11. Since no redemption was made by
petitioners within the two-year period, which expired on 29 January 1977, the sheriff issued a Final Deed
of Sale on 15 February 1977. Petitioners, however, claimed that they were granted by respondent bank an
extension of the redemption period; but the latter denied it. In their complaint petitioners alleged that the
final deed of sale was prematurely issued since they were granted an extension of time to redeem the
property.

ISSUE:

Whether the final deed of sale was prematurely issued.

HELD:

It seems clear from testimony elicited on cross-examination of the president and manager
of the bank that the latter offered to re-sell the property for P30,000.00 but after the petition for a
writ of possession had already been filed, and well after expiry of the period to redeem.
Appellants failed to accept the offer; they deposited only P4,000.00. There was therefore no
meeting of the minds, and accordingly, appellants may no longer be heard. the attempts to
redeem the property were done after the expiration of the redemption period and that no
extension of that period was granted to petitioners.

You might also like