Fortunado v CA Facts: In the civil case entitled Alfaro Fortunado v Angel Bautista, the RTC rendered judgment ordering

ng the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff. Pursuant to the judgment, City Sheriff Basilisa Campano levied upon two parcels of land registered in the name of Bautista covered by TCT No. T-7625 and TCT No. T-14133. The lot covered by TCT No. T-14133 was already sold to National Steel Corporation but had not been registered in its name. After due notice, these lots were sold at a public auction to the petitioners as the only bidder. Thereafter, NSC gave notice to the sheriff of its intention to redeem the lot covered by TCT No. T-14133. But the sheriff recommended that it redeem to the two lots since they had been sold together for the lump sum of P267,013. NSC then filed with the RTC an urgent motion to redeem the two lots. Petitioners opposed this motion on the ground that the movant did not have the personality to intervene. As the motion remained unresolved and the period of redemption would then expire, NSC issued to the sheriff a check as payment for the redemption. Bautista then sent a letter acknowledging the redemption but made reservations that he is still questioning the validity of the writ of execution and sale. Sheriff on March 22, 1985 issued a certificate of redemption in favor of NSC and Bautista. On March 25, 1985, Bautista wrote the sheriff that he would no longer redeem the property as the sale was null and void. On March 27, 1985, in an Urgent Motion, Bautista that the check issued by NSC be delivered to and kept by the Clerk of Court until such time as all the incidents relative to the validity of the auction sale were finally resolved. The sheriff then informed petitioners counsel of the deposit of the check. But the counsel rejected the same contending that the check was not a legal tender and was not intended for payment but only for deposit.

Petitioner then requested the sheriff to issue a final deed of sale since there was no valid redemption of the property. But the same was not granted so the petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with CA. Petitioner argued that respondents failed to comply with the rules in exercising the right of redemption as Article 1249 of the Civil Code, which provides that payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines, is applicable to such. CA rejected petitioners argument but held that the validity of redemption was dependent on the validity of the certificate of sale, which had to be resolved by the trial court. MR was denied hence this petition for certiorari.

Issue: W/N there was a valid redemption made by the respondents

Held: The case applicable to the present controversy is Javellana v Mirasol where the Court held that a redemption of property sold under execution is not rendered invalid by reason of the fact that the payment to the sheriff for the purpose of redemption is effected by means of a check for the amount due. On the issue of the applicability of Article 1249 and the validity of the tender of payment through a crossed check this Court in Tolentino v CA held:
xxx the aforequoted article should not be applied to the instant case xxx. To start, the Tolentinos are not indebted to BPI their mortage indebtedness having been extinguished with the foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged properties. After said foreclosure and sale, what remains is the right vested by law in favor of the Tolentinos to redeem the properties within the prescribed period. This right of redemption is an absolute privilege, the exercise of which is entirely dependent upon the will and discretion of the redemption. xxx On the other hand, if the redemptioners choose to exercise their right of redemption, it is the policy of the law to aid rather than to defeat the right of redemption.

We are not by this decision, sanctioning the use of check for the payment of obligations over the objection of the creditor. What we are saying is that a check may be used for the exercise of the right of redemption, the same being a right and not an obligation. The tender of a check is sufficient to compel redemption but is not in itself a payment that relieves the redemption from his liability to pay the redemption price. In other words, while we hold that the private respondents properly exercised their right of redemption, they remain liable of course for the payment of the redemption price.