ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 127167. February 23, 2000]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS., et al. vs. NLRC, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 23 2000.

G.R. No. 127167 (Republic of the Philippines, represented by Asset Privatization Trust vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Labor Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr., Atty. Guerrero Campos, in his capacity as Register of Deeds in the province of Tarlac and Domingo P. Uy.)

Before us is a petitioner's motion for reconsideration of our decision promulgated on November 18, 1999, affirming the order of Labor Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.1 Dated February 23, 1996. and the National labor Relations Commission's decision.2 In Case No. 00-05-0257090 entitled Pantranco Association of Concerned Employees vs. Pantranco North Express, Inc. dated October 16, 1996.

The motion hinges on two grounds:

1) The ruling in Quimson vs. PNB, 36 SCRA 26 [1970] is that Section 30, Rule 39 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court (now Section 28, Rule 39) uniformly applied to sales upon extrajudicial foreclosure of registered land under Act No. 3135 which provides for a redemption period of one year.

2) In the interest of justice, Section 28, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which extended the period of redemption to a full one year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale should be given retroactive effect to apply to the redemption of the subject property made by APT on October 30, 1995.

The applicable provision is Section 30, Rule 39, 1964 Revised Rules of Court.

This case involves execution sale, where the law specified the period of redemption to be twelve (12) months. As already explained in our decision twelve months is not one year. Twelve months consist of 360 days, not 365 days. The Quimson ruling precisely emphasized that redemption should be made within twelve (12) months from the registration of the sale. Petitioner lost its right to redeem the property upon the expiration of this period. There is no explanation why the redemption could not be made within 360 days.

Petitioner erroneously cited the ruling in Gorospe vs. Barrameda.3 69 SCRA 191 [1976]. In that case, the Court ruled that the provision on redemption of property sold on execution of judgments likewise applies to redemption of real property sold on extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage. The Court was referring to Section 29, Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court on who may redeem real property sold, not to the period of redemption.

Anent the second argument, we ruled in United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Luis R. Reyes,4 193 SCRA 756, 763 [1991]. that if there were any rights to be protected, they were those of the purchaser who had a superior right over the property as against all other persons.

Failing to raise any substantial argument that would merit a reconsideration of our decision, we resolve to DENY petitioner's motion for reconsideration. This denial is final.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE