G.R. No.

185644 March 2, 2010

Heirs of ESTELITA BURGOS-LIPAT, namely: ALAN B. LIPAT
and ALFREDO B.LIPAT, JR.,Petitioners,
vs.
Heirs of EUGENIO D. TRINIDAD, namely: ASUNCION R.
TRINIDAD, VICTOR R.TRINIDAD, IMACULADA T. ALFONSO,
CELESTINA T. NAGUIAT, FERNANDO R.TRINIDAD, MICHAEL
R. TRINIDAD and JOSEFINA T. NAGUIAT,
Respondents

Facts:
Estelita and Alfredo Lipat obtained a loan from Pacific
Banking Corporation, secured by a real estate mortgage. Due to
petitioners’ failure to pay their loans, the PBC foreclosed the subject
property with Eugenio D. Trinidad as the highest bidder. He was issued a
certificate of sale which was registered on April 12, 1989. The
petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of mortgage, extra-
judicial foreclosure and certificate of sale. The RTC dismissed
the complaint but granted petitioners five months and 17 days
from the finality of the decision to exercise
t h e i r r i g h t o f r e d e mp t i o n , a d e c i s io n wh i c h w a s s u b s e q u e n t
l y a f f i r me d b y t h e S u p r e me C o u r t . M e a n wh i l e , p e t i t i o n e r s a
s s i g n e d t h e i r r i gh t s o v e r t h e c o n t e s t e d property to
PartasTransporation Co., Inc. (PTCI).Wi t h i n t h e g i v e n p e r i o d
l e f t f o r redemption, PTCI exercised the right of redemption.
However, the heirs of Trinidad refused to claim the redemption
money and surrender the certificate of title.

Issue:

WO N t h e r i g h t t o r e d e mp t i o n s h o u l d h a v e b e e n
e x e r c i s e d wi t h i n o n e ye a r from the date of registration of the
certificate of sale.

Ruling:

The oneyear redemption period is the rule that generally applies to

foreclosure of mortgage by a bank.

The period of redemption is not tolled by the filing of a complaint

or petition for annulment of the mortgage and the foreclosure sale
conducted pursuant to the said mortgage. However, in Lipat ,the Supreme
Court upheld the RTC decision giving petitioners five months and 17 days
from the finality of the trial court’s decision to redeem their forclosed
property. Lipat ,already final and executory, has therefore become the law
of the case between the parties, even though the said period was beyond
one year parties, from the date of registration of the sale. The CA had no
power to reverse the Court’s final and executory judgment.

WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration of this Courts

resolutions dated January 14, 2009[22] and March 4, 2009[23] are
hereby GRANTED.

The petition is REINSTATED and likewise GRANTED. The

decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. SP No.
96176 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The order of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City dated August 22, 2006 is
hereby REINSTATED with the modification that the redemption price be
recomputed in accordance with Section 78 of the General Banking
Act.The said redemption price shall be subject to legal interest at 12% p.a.
from April 13, 1990 until June 16, 2004.