11/20/24, 1:04 PM Case Digest: G.R. No. 136368 - Tan, Jr. vs.
Court of Appeals
Title
Tan, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 136368 Jan 16, 2002
A judicial administrator fights for his right to redeem a property, arguing that the old rule should apply,
while the Court of Appeals applies the new rule, resulting in the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the
petitioner and allowing him to redeem the property within the 120-day period.
Case Digest (G.R. No. 136368)
Comprehensive
Facts:
The case concerns Lot No. 645-C in Bunawan, Davao City, originally owned by Jaime C. Tan and
Praxedes V. Tan.
On January 22, 1981, Jaime Tan sold the property to spouses Jose and Estrella Magdangal for
P59,200.
An agreement was made allowing Tan to redeem the property within one year, with several
extensions granted.
Tan failed to redeem the property before his death on January 4, 1988.
Tan's heirs filed a suit for reformation, claiming the sale was intended as an equitable
mortgage.
The RTC of Davao City ruled in favor of Tan's heirs on June 4, 1991, declaring the deed an
equitable mortgage.
Tan's heirs were ordered to pay the Magdangals P59,200 plus interest within 120 days after the
decision's finality.
The CA affirmed the RTC decision on September 28, 1995.
A dispute arose regarding the finality of the judgment and the redemption period due to the
retroactive application of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing redemption within the 120-day
period from the appellate court's entry of judgment on March 13, 1996.
Issue:
1. Should the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure be applied retroactively to determine the
finality of the judgment and the redemption period?
Key Point: Whether the new procedural rules should apply to past cases.
2. Did the petitioner redeem the property within the allowable period under the applicable rules?
Key Point: If the redemption was made within the legally allowable time frame.
Ruling:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure should not be applied
retroactively in this case.
Key Point: Retroactive application of new procedural rules was not allowed.
2. The Court held that the petitioner redeemed the property within the allowable period under the
old rule, which reckoned the 120-day redemption period from the appellate court's entry of
judgment on March 13, 1996.
Key Point: The redemption was timely under the old procedural rules.
Ratio:
The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural laws can generally be given retroactive effect
but exceptions exist when such retroactive application would result in injustice or impair
vested rights.
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/tan-jr-v-court-of-appeals?q=G.R.+No.+136368+January+16%2C+2002#_ 1/2
11/20/24, 1:04 PM Case Digest: G.R. No. 136368 - Tan, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
Key Point: Retroactive application must not cause unfairness or harm vested rights.
Applying the 1997 Revised Rules retroactively would have deprived the petitioner of the right to
redeem the property, a substantive right.
Key Point: Protecting substantive rights over procedural changes.
The petitioner had followed the procedural rules and jurisprudence existing at the time of
redemption.
Key Point: Compliance with the rules as they existed at the time is crucial.
Retroactive application of the new rule would have unfairly penalized the petitioner, who acted
in good faith and in accordance with the law as it stood.
Key Point: Fairness and good faith in following existing laws.
The principle of fairness and the protection of vested rights guided the Court's decision to
calculate the redemption period from the date of the appellate court's entry of judgment, thus
validating the petitioner's timely redemption of the property.
Key Point: Fairness and protection of vested rights are paramount.
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/tan-jr-v-court-of-appeals?q=G.R.+No.+136368+January+16%2C+2002#_ 2/2
