G.R. No. 143896 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SANTIAGO (ISABELA) MEMORIAL PARK, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that, after due hearing, judgment be rendered: ordering defendant to accept from plaintiff the lawful redemption amount which shall be determined by this Honorable Court; ordering defendant to execute the necessary instrument in order to effect the redemption of the property; ordering defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum of P30,000.00 by way of attorney's fees; AND PLAINTIFF PRAYS for further reliefs just and equitable under the premises. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint does not state a cause of action. It alleges that assuming that the allegations in the complaint are true and correct, still there was no redemption effected within one year from the date of registration of the sheriff's certificate of sale with the Register of Deeds on January 21, 1991, thus private respondent had lost its right to redeem the subject land. Petitioner claimed that the letter cited in paragraph 5 of the complaint was a mere offer to redeem the property which was promptly answered by a letter dated August 28, 1991, which categorically denied private respondent's offer and stated that when it comes to redemption, the basis of payment is the total claim of the bank at the time the property was foreclosed plus 12% thereof and all litigation expenses attached thereto or its present appraised value whichever is higher; that the letter mentioned in paragraph 6 of the complaint dated January 23, 1992 of the Deputy Liquidator was about negotiation and special arrangement and not redemption for at that stage the period of redemption had already expired; that the letter mentioned in paragraph 7 dated March 12, 1992 was of the postponement of the consolidation of the subject property and not of any extension for the period of redemption; that the amount of P50,000.00 remitted by private respondent was in consideration of the postponement of the consolidation of the property in petitioner's name and as manifestation of private respondent's sincerity to repurchase the foreclosed property; that when private respondent remitted P50,000.00, the Deputy Liquidator of petitioner bank requested the legal counsel of petitioner to defer consolidation of property in petitioner's name; that in a letter dated November 5, 1993, petitioner's Senior Vice President declared that the subject property is available for repurchase in the amount of P5,830,600.00 to which private respondent in another letter asked for an extension of 30 days to make an offer. Private respondent filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss alleging among others that the complaint states a cause of action; that the annexes of the motion to dismiss should not be considered in the resolution of such motion. On May 10, 1994, the trial court rendered an Order [3] dismissing the complaint. It ratiocinated that (1) the letter dated August 6, 1991 was an offer to redeem for P700,000.00 without any tender of the money; (2) the