This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-06-08 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| We have established in jurisprudence that in cases involving redemption, the law protects the original owner. It is the policy of the law to aid rather than to defeat the owner's right. Therefore, "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."[35] In Doronilla v. Vasquez, this Court allowed the redemption in certain cases even after the lapse of the one (1)- year period in order to promote justice. [36] This Court even went further in Delos Reyes v. Intermediate Appellate Court, when the rule on redemption was liberally interpreted in favor of the original owner of the property to give him another opportunity to recover his property, should his fortunes improve.[37] Finally, in Rosales v. Yboa, this Court held that:In fine, We hold that the failure of the mortgagor Pedro Oliverio to tender the amount of P745.47 representing the delinquent real estate taxes of the subject property, the registration fee of P3.00 and the interest thereon of P0.04, the Sheriff's Commission in the sum of P99.82, and the deficiency interest on the purchase price of the subject property, will not render the redemption in question null and void, it having been established that he has substantially complied with the requirements of the law to effect a valid redemption, with his tender of payment of the purchase price and the interest thereon within twelve (12) months from the date of the registration of the sale. This ruling is in obedience of the policy of the law to aid rather than to defeat the right of redemption. [38] | |||||
|
2004-06-10 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners now take refuge in cases decided by this Court which stress the liberal construction of redemption laws in favor of the redemptioner. Doronila v. Vasquez[6] allowed redemption in certain cases even after the lapse of the one-year period in order to promote justice and avoid injustice. In Tolentino v. Court of Appeals,[7] the policy of the law to aid rather than defeat the right of redemption was expressed, stressing that where no injury would ensue, liberal construction of redemption laws is pursued and the exercise of the right to redemption is permitted to better serve the ends of justice. In De los Reyes v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[8] the rule was liberally interpreted in favor of the original owner of the property to give him another opportunity, should his fortunes improve, to recover his property. | |||||