DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
August 14, 2019 and the Resolution dated June 17, 2020 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 111924 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY LEXUS. SPOUSES KO BOUGHT IT BUT THE DEED OF SALE WAS UNDATED AND UNNOTARIZED. THE PROPERTY WAS AUCTIONED BECAUSE OF TAX DELINQUENCY. GO BOUGHT IT. SPOUSES KO REDEEMED IT. WAS REDEMPTION VALID SINCE SPOUSES KO HAVE NOT YET TRANSFERRED THE TITLE TO THEIR NAMES AND THE DEED OF SALE WAS NOT EVEN NOTARIZED.

YES. THE DEED OF SALE, WHILE NOT NOTARIZED, IS VALID. FURTHER, LAW ALWAYS FAVOR REDEMPTION.

Under the circumstances, it is clear that Spouses Ko had the right
to redeem the subject property as the owners thereof notwithstanding the
fact that the title had yet to be transferred under their own names. Thus,
the only question now is whether Spouses Ko actually exercised their right
of redemption within one year from the date of sale of the subject property.


To stress, it is undisputed that Spouses Ko, through Lynnor, paid
the redemption price as computed by the City Treasurer’s Office well
within the one-year redemption period, as evidenced by Official Receipt
No. 6566377 dated March 29, 2012.

Contrary to Go’s insistence, this constitutes as a valid exercise of
the right of redemption on the part of Spouses Ko despite their nonsubmission
of any proof of ownership or legal interest on the subject
property before the City Treasurer’s Office. To reiterate, the payment of
the redemption price in the case was actually credited to Lexus, not to
Spouses Ko, as shown by the official receipt thereon. Stated differently,
even the City Treasurer’s Office acknowledged that the redemption price
paid by Lynnor was meant specifically for the redemption of the subject
property, which, based on its records, was still owned by Lexus, the
delinquent registered owner thereof.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Spouses Ko had validly
redeemed the subject property upon payment of the full redemption price
of ?348,355.92 within the one-year redemption period provided under
Section 261 of RA 7160.

After all, it is well settled that “where the redemptioner has chosen
to exercise the right of redemption, it is the policy of the law to aid rather
than to defeat such right.”39 Moreover, as the Court emphasized in City
Mayor of Quezon City v. RCBC,40 “redemption should be looked upon
with favor and where no injury will follow, a liberal construction will be
given to our redemption laws, specifically on the exercise of the right to
redeem. “41

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

scd-2023-0032-davidson-go-vs.-spouses-henry-and-janet-koDownload

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.