Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Chuy Lu Tan, et al.

A mortgagee-creditor may recover from the debtors the unpaid balance of the obligation where the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property yields proceeds insufficient to cover the debt, the inadequacy of the bid price being immaterial so long as the mortgagor's right of redemption subsists and the mortgagee having acquired the property at the sale notwithstanding; equity may not be invoked to defeat that contractual right, although stipulated penalty charges and attorney's fees, being in the nature of liquidated damages, may be equitably reduced when iniquitous or unconscionable.

Respondents Chuy Lu Tan and Romeo Tanco were borrowers of petitioner Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, their obligations secured by a real estate mortgage executed by Chuy and by a Continuing Surety Agreement executed by respondents Sy Se Hiong and Tan Chu Hsiu Yen, who bound themselves solidarily with the principal debtors for the principal amount plus interest, penalties, costs, and expenses. Extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages in the Philippines is governed by Act No. 3135, which prescribes the requirements, procedure, and venue for foreclosure and recognizes the mortgagor's right to redeem, but is silent on the mortgagee's right to recover any deficiency after the sale.

Between February 26, 1996 and May 8, 1996, respondents Chuy Lu Tan and Romeo Tanco obtained five loans from petitioner Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company with an aggregate amount of ₱19,900,000.00, evidenced by five promissory notes executed on various dates. As security for the loans, Chuy executed on February 26, 1996 a real estate mortgage over a 1,449.70-square-meter parcel of land in Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-53314 (288923). In addition to the mortgage, respondents Sy Se Hiong and Tan Chu Hsiu Yen executed a Continuing Surety Agreement whereby they bound themselves to be solidarily liable with Chuy and Tanco for the principal amount of ₱19,900,000.00 plus interests at the rate or rates stated in the obligation secured, and any or all penalties, costs, and expenses incurred by Metrobank in granting or collecting the obligations, including those for the custody, maintenance, and preservation of the securities given therefor.

Chuy and Tanco failed to settle their loans despite Metrobank's repeated demands for payment. In a final demand letter dated October 27, 1999, Metrobank's counsel notified Chuy that, as of October 15, 1999, their obligations, comprising the principal amount loaned together with interest and penalties, amounted to ₱24,353,062.03.

Consequently, on December 14, 1999, Metrobank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, and the property was sold to it as the highest bidder for ₱24,572,268.00. In separate letters to the respondents, all dated January 26, 2000, Metrobank claimed that after application of the bid price to the outstanding obligation and the payment of the costs of foreclosure, accrued interest, penalty charges, attorney's fees, and other related expenses, there remained a deficiency of ₱1,641,815.00 as of January 15, 2000. Metrobank demanded payment of that deficiency, and for respondents' failure to heed the demand, it filed a suit for collection of a sum of money with the Regional Trial Court of Makati.

Before the trial court, Chuy was declared in default for her failure to attend the pre-trial and to file a pre-trial brief, and Metrobank was allowed to present its evidence ex parte against her. It was undisputed that the total amount of the outstanding loan obligation at the time of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, and that a loan balance still remained after the amount obtained at the sale was subtracted. Respondents never disputed the amount and computation of the ₱1,641,815.00 deficiency either in their Special and Affirmative Defenses in their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim or in their Appellant's Brief before the Court of Appeals; their defense rested on the claim that the supposed value of the subject property exceeded their outstanding obligation and that the bid price was grossly inadequate, so that no balance could be exacted from them, especially as it was Metrobank itself that bought the property at the foreclosure sale.

• Deficiency Claim: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in denying its deficiency claim on the ground that the claim, which allegedly consisted almost entirely of interest and penalties, is iniquitous, unconscionable, and exorbitant.
• Inadequate Bid Price: Petitioner posited that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the mortgaged property is worth more than the bid price and that this circumstance bars petitioner from claiming any deficiency.
• Admitted Default: Petitioner claimed that its deficiency claim should not have been dismissed because respondents had admitted default in the payment of their obligations.
• Stipulated Interest and Penalty Charges: On appeal to the Court of Appeals, petitioner assigned as error the trial court's failure to apply the interest rates and penalty charges stipulated in the promissory notes on the unpaid obligation of respondents.
• Attorney's Fees: Petitioner likewise assigned as error the trial court's failure to award attorney's fees in its favor.

• Excessive and Unfounded Deficiency: Respondents argued that the trial court erred in failing to resolve the issue of the excessive and unfounded amount of the alleged deficiency balance of ₱1,641,815.00 consisting of penalties and surcharges, when the value of the foreclosed property was already more than enough to pay the debt in full.
• Joint and Several Liability and Equity: Respondents argued that the trial court erred in finding them jointly and severally liable despite their having established by preponderance of evidence that Metrobank had already recovered the unpaid balance on the principal obligation and had already substantially gained from the foreclosure of the collateral; as a court of equity, the court should strike off the unreasonable and exorbitant penalties and surcharges claimed.
• Conjugal Partnership: Respondents argued that the trial court erred in failing to rule that the conjugal partnership properties of Dr. Sy with his wife Lydia Sy cannot be held answerable for Metrobank's claims, the Continuing Surety Agreement having been entered into without the consent of his wife and absent any showing that it redounded to the benefit of their conjugal partnership.
• Bar to Recovery: Respondents averred that since the supposed value of the subject property is more than the amount of their outstanding obligation, they can no longer be held liable for the balance, especially because it was petitioner who bought the property at the foreclosure sale.

• Right to Recover Deficiency: Whether a creditor may recover from the debtors the unpaid balance of the principal obligation where the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the property subject of the real estate mortgage results in a deficiency.
• Inadequacy of the Bid Price: Whether the alleged inadequacy of the bid price — the property having supposedly been sold for less than its actual market value and acquired by the mortgagee itself — bars the mortgagee from claiming any deficiency.
• Equity and Unjust Enrichment: Whether equity may bar or temper the creditor's contractual right to collect the deficiency on the ground that recovery would be iniquitous, unconscionable, or would amount to unjust enrichment.
• Penalty Charge: Whether the stipulated eighteen percent (18%) per annum penalty charge on the deficiency claim should be equitably reduced.
• Attorney's Fees: Whether the stipulated attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the amount due should be equitably reduced.
• Interest Rate: Whether the sixteen percent (16%) per annum interest rate pegged in the promissory notes is fair and enforceable.
• Interest on Monetary Awards: Whether the total monetary awards should earn interest from finality of the decision until full satisfaction.

• Right to Recover Deficiency: Yes. A creditor is not precluded from recovering any unpaid balance on the principal obligation if the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the property subject of the real estate mortgage results in a deficiency, Act No. 3135 being silent on but not prohibiting such recovery.
• Inadequacy of the Bid Price: No. The fact that the mortgaged property was sold at an amount less than its actual market value does not militate against the right to recovery, and Act No. 3135 prescribes no appraisal requirement, no minimum bid, and no rule that the bid approximate the property's value.
• Equity and Unjust Enrichment: No. Equity, described as "justice outside legality," is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure, and no unjust enrichment results from upholding the creditor's contractual claim.
• Penalty Charge: No, not at the stipulated rate. The eighteen percent (18%) penalty charge on the deficiency claim is excessive and is reduced to twelve percent (12%) per annum, the penalty partaking of the nature of liquidated damages under Article 2226 of the Civil Code.
• Attorney's Fees: No, not at ten percent (10%) of the total amount due. Attorney's fees are in the nature of liquidated damages and may be equitably reduced; ten percent (10%) of the deficiency claim is reasonable.
• Interest Rate: Yes. The sixteen percent (16%) per annum interest rate is fair, settled jurisprudence holding that even a twenty-four percent (24%) interest rate is not unconscionable.
• Interest on Monetary Awards: Yes. The total monetary awards shall earn interest at the prevailing rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the decision until full satisfaction, taking the form of a judicial debt.

• Right to Recover Deficiency: The settled rule is that a creditor is not precluded from recovering any unpaid balance on the principal obligation if the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the property subject of the real estate mortgage results in a deficiency. In Spouses Rabat vs. Philippine National Bank, the Court held that if the proceeds of the sale are insufficient to cover the debt in an extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage, the mortgagee is entitled to claim the deficiency from the debtor; where the legislature intends to deny the creditor the right to sue for any deficiency resulting from foreclosure of security, it expressly so provides, as in the case of pledges under Article 2115 of the Civil Code and chattel mortgages of a thing sold on installment basis under Article 1484(3). Act No. 3135, which governs extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages, is silent as to the mortgagee's right to recover but does not prohibit recovery; accordingly, a deficiency claim arising from extrajudicial foreclosure is allowed. The Court noted that there was no dispute as to the total amount of the outstanding loan obligation at the time of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale and that, by subtracting the amount obtained at the sale from that obligation, a loan balance still remained.

• Inadequacy of the Bid Price: The fact that the mortgaged property was sold at an amount less than its actual market value should not militate against the right to recovery. In deference to the rule that a mortgage is simply a security and cannot be considered payment of an outstanding obligation, the creditor is not barred from recovering the deficiency even if it bought the mortgaged property at the extrajudicial foreclosure sale at a price lower than its market value, notwithstanding that the value is more than or equal to the total amount of the debtor's obligation. Suico Rattan & Buri Interiors, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals explained that it is wrong for debtors to conclude that a bank's purchase of the foreclosed properties at a very low price effectively prevented them from satisfying their whole obligation, since they retained the option of redeeming the properties and thereafter selling them at a price corresponding to their claimed actual market value, or of simply selling their right to redeem for a price equivalent to the difference between the supposed market value and the price obtained at the foreclosure sale. The Court likewise rejected the implication in the assailed CA Decision that the bid price should approximate the value of the mortgaged property: Act No. 3135 has no requirement for the determination of the mortgaged properties' appraisal value, nothing in the law indicates that the mortgagee-creditor's appraisal value shall be the basis for the bid price, and there is no rule or guideline prescribing the minimum amount of bid or requiring that the bid be at least equal to the properties' current appraised value; the law only provides the requirements, procedure, venue, and the mortgagor's right to redeem. Throughout a long line of jurisprudence, the Court has declared that unlike in an ordinary sale, inadequacy of the price at a forced sale is immaterial and does not nullify the sale, since in a forced sale a low price is more beneficial to the mortgage debtor because it makes redemption easier. Thus, even assuming the valuation of the property to be correct, the inadequacy of the price at which it was sold at public auction does not prevent the petitioner from claiming any deficiency not covered by the foreclosure sale. The Court added that respondents never disputed the amount and computation of the deficiency in their Special and Affirmative Defenses or in their Appellant's Brief; what they insisted upon was that petitioner is barred from recovering any deficiency because the bid price is considerably inadequate as compared to the alleged actual value of the foreclosed property, a contention foreclosed by the rule that when there is a right to redeem, the inadequacy of the price becomes immaterial.

• Equity and Unjust Enrichment: Contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, the Court may not temper respondents' liability on the ground of equity. The Court is barred by its own often repeated admonition that equity, aptly described as "justice outside legality," is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure; for all its conceded merit, equity is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement. The law and jurisprudence on the matter are clear enough to close the door on a recourse to equity. Article 1159 of the Civil Code expressly provides that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith, and it is clear under the promissory notes, the real estate mortgage contract, and the Continuing Surety Agreement executed by respondents that they voluntarily bound themselves to pay the amounts claimed. There is no convincing evidence or argument showing that petitioner is not entitled to the deficiency it claims. Unjust enrichment exists when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good governance; no such enrichment results from upholding the right of petitioner to collect any deficiency from respondents, there being a strong legal basis for the claim against them for the balance of their loan obligation.

• Penalty Charge: The Court did not totally agree that the rate of penalty charges on the deficiency claim, as well as the recoverable attorney's fees, should be that embodied in the contract. A contract is the law between the parties and courts have no choice but to enforce it, subject to the condition that the contract is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, or public policy. The promissory notes pegged interest at sixteen percent (16%) per annum computed from the dates of execution, and under settled jurisprudence a twenty-four percent (24%) interest rate is not considered unconscionable; hence the sixteen percent (16%) rate imposed was found fair. With respect to the penalty charge, the surcharge or penalty stipulated in a loan agreement in case of default partakes of the nature of liquidated damages under Article 2226 of the Civil Code and is separate and distinct from interest payment; also referred to as a penalty clause, it is expressly recognized by law as an accessory undertaking to assume greater liability on the part of an obligor in case of breach. Nonetheless, under Article 2227 of the Civil Code, liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable, and Article 1229 of the same Code provides that the judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor, and even if there has been no performance the penalty may be reduced if it is iniquitous or unconscionable. The eighteen percent (18%) penalty charge imposed on the deficiency claim, computed from the time of default, was found excessive and was accordingly reduced considering that petitioner was already able to recover a large portion of respondents' principal obligation; in consonance with prevailing jurisprudence, the rate was reduced from eighteen percent (18%) per annum to twelve percent (12%) per annum.

• Attorney's Fees: The law allows a party to recover attorney's fees under a written agreement. In Barons Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that attorney's fees are in the nature of liquidated damages and the stipulation therefor is aptly called a penal clause, and that so long as such stipulation does not contravene law, morals, or public order, it is strictly binding upon the defendant; the attorney's fees so provided are awarded in favor of the litigant, not his counsel. Even if such attorney's fees are allowed by law, as in the case of the penalty charge, the courts still have the power to reduce the same if the fees are unreasonable. The subject promissory notes provide for the payment of attorney's fees at the rate of ten percent (10%) of the amount due, which must be equitably reduced taking into account that: (1) petitioner had already recovered the principal amount it seeks during the foreclosure sale; (2) petitioner had likewise recovered a sizeable portion of the interest and penalty charges imposed on the principal amount due; (3) the attorney's fees are not an integral part of the cost of borrowing but a mere incident of collection; and (4) the attorney's fees were intended as a penal clause to answer for liquidated damages, which is similar to the purpose of the imposition of the penalty charge. Hence, the rate of ten percent (10%) of the total amount due was too onerous, and attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the deficiency claim was held reasonable.

• Interest Rate: The promissory notes executed by respondents indicate that interest rates were pegged at sixteen percent (16%) per annum computed from the dates of execution thereof. Under settled jurisprudence, a twenty-four percent (24%) interest rate is not considered unconscionable; hence the sixteen percent (16%) interest rate imposed by petitioner was found fair.

• Interest on Monetary Awards: Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the total monetary awards shall earn interest at the prevailing rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the decision until full satisfaction thereof, which takes the form of a judicial debt.

• Deficiency claim in extrajudicial foreclosure — Where the proceeds of an extrajudicial foreclosure sale are insufficient to cover the debt, the mortgagee is entitled to claim the deficiency from the debtor. Act No. 3135, which governs extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgages, is silent on the mortgagee's right to recover but does not prohibit it; the legislature's denial of that right is expressed only in specific instances such as pledges under Article 2115 and chattel mortgages of things sold on installment under Article 1484(3) of the Civil Code. The Court applied the doctrine to sustain Metrobank's claim for the ₱1,641,815.00 balance remaining after the bid price was applied.

• Mortgage as security, not satisfaction of indebtedness — A mortgage is simply a security and cannot be considered payment of an outstanding obligation. Consequently, the creditor is not barred from recovering the deficiency even if it bought the mortgaged property at the extrajudicial foreclosure sale at a price lower than its market value, notwithstanding that the value is more than or equal to the total amount of the debtor's obligation. This rule supplied the principal basis for reversing the Court of Appeals.

• Immateriality of inadequacy of price in a forced sale — Unlike in an ordinary sale, inadequacy of the price at a forced sale is immaterial and does not nullify the sale, since in a forced sale a low price is more beneficial to the mortgage debtor because it makes redemption of the property easier. The debtor's remedies are to redeem the property or to sell the right of redemption. The Court held that even assuming the property's valuation to be correct, the low bid price did not prevent Metrobank from claiming the deficiency.

• No statutory appraisal or minimum-bid requirement under Act No. 3135 — Act No. 3135 contains no requirement for the determination of the mortgaged properties' appraisal value, and nothing in the law indicates that the mortgagee-creditor's appraisal value shall be the basis for the bid price; neither is there any rule or guideline prescribing the minimum amount of bid or requiring that the bid be at least equal to the properties' current appraised value. The law only provides the requirements, procedure, venue, and the mortgagor's right to redeem.

• Equity applied only in the absence of law — Equity, described as "justice outside legality," is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure; it is available only in the absence of law and not as its replacement. Because Article 1159 of the Civil Code gives contracts the force of law between the parties, the Court refused to invoke equity to defeat Metrobank's contractual right to the deficiency.

• Unjust enrichment — Unjust enrichment exists when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good governance. No unjust enrichment arises where there is a strong legal basis for the creditor's claim to the balance of the loan obligation.

• Penalty clause as liquidated damages — A surcharge or penalty stipulated in a loan agreement in case of default partakes of the nature of liquidated damages under Article 2226 of the Civil Code and is separate and distinct from interest payment; it is an accessory undertaking to assume greater liability on the part of an obligor in case of breach. Under Article 2227, liquidated damages, whether intended as indemnity or penalty, shall be equitably reduced if iniquitous or unconscionable, and under Article 1229 the judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with, or even without performance if the penalty is iniquitous or unconscionable. Applying these provisions, the Court reduced the 18% per annum penalty charge to 12% per annum.

• Attorney's fees as liquidated damages subject to reduction — Attorney's fees stipulated in a written agreement are in the nature of liquidated damages and the stipulation therefor is aptly called a penal clause; so long as the stipulation does not contravene law, morals, or public order, it is strictly binding upon the defendant, and the fees are awarded in favor of the litigant, not his counsel. Courts nonetheless retain the power to reduce the same if unreasonable. The Court reduced the stipulated 10% of the total amount due to 10% of the deficiency claim, considering the principal already recovered at the foreclosure sale, the sizeable portion of interest and penalties already collected, the incidental nature of attorney's fees to collection, and their penal character.

• Judicial debt interest — Monetary awards earn interest at the prevailing rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the decision until full satisfaction, which takes the form of a judicial debt.

• "Settled is the rule that a creditor is not precluded from recovering any unpaid balance on the principal obligation if the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the property subject of the real estate mortgage results in a deficiency." — This is the ratio decidendi of the decision, stating the controlling rule that authorized Metrobank's recovery of the deficiency and supplied the ground for reversing the Court of Appeals.

• "Settled is the rule that a mortgage is simply a security and not a satisfaction of indebtedness." — This compressed formulation of the nature of a mortgage underlies the Court's rejection of the argument that the mortgagee's acquisition of the property at the foreclosure sale extinguished the debt.

• "Contrary to the ruling of the CA, the Court may not temper respondents' liability to the petitioner on the ground of equity. The Court is barred by its own often repeated admonition that equity, which has been aptly described as 'justice outside legality,' is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure." — This passage defines the limits of equity as a judicial remedy and explains why the Court of Appeals' equitable dismissal of the complaint could not stand against the express contract and Article 1159 of the Civil Code.

• "In the instant case, the Court finds the eighteen percent (18%) penalty charge imposed by petitioner on the deficiency claim, computed from the time of default, as excessive and, accordingly, reduces it considering that petitioner was already able to recover a large portion of respondents' principal obligation." — This states the Court's application of Articles 2227 and 1229 of the Civil Code in equitably reducing the stipulated penalty charge from 18% to 12% per annum.

• Spouses Rabat vs. Philippine National Bank, 688 Phil. 33 (2012) — The controlling precedent quoted at length by the Court for the rule that the mortgagee is entitled to claim the deficiency in an extrajudicial foreclosure, Act No. 3135 being silent on but not prohibiting recovery; also cited for the rule that inadequacy of the price at a forced sale is immaterial and for the limitation on equity.
• Suico Rattan & Buri Interiors, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 524 Phil. 92 (2006) — Quoted for the proposition that the debtor's remedy against an inadequate bid price is to redeem the property or sell the right of redemption, and that the mortgagee's acquisition of the mortgaged properties at a low price is not a valid reason to refuse to pay the remaining balance of the obligation.
• Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Reyes, 680 Phil. 718 (2012) — Followed for the rule that the creditor is not barred from recovering the deficiency even if it bought the mortgaged property at a price lower than its market value, and for the rule that equity is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure.
• Sycamore Ventures Corporation, et al. vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., 721 Phil. 290 (2013) — Cited for the absence in Act No. 3135 of any requirement for the determination of the mortgaged properties' appraisal value or of any prescribed minimum bid price.
• Barons Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 349 Phil. 769 (1998) — Cited for the rule that stipulated attorney's fees are in the nature of liquidated damages and constitute a penal clause that is strictly binding so long as it does not contravene law, morals, or public order, but which the courts may reduce if unreasonable.
• RGM Industries, Inc. vs. United Pacific Capital Corporation, 689 Phil. 660 (2012) — Cited as prevailing jurisprudence supporting the reduction of the penalty charge rate and enumerating the factors justifying the equitable reduction of attorney's fees.
• Spouses Mallari vs. Prudential Bank (now Bank of the Philippine Islands), 710 Phil. 490 (2013) — Cited for the rule that a twenty-four percent (24%) interest rate is not considered unconscionable, which supported the Court's finding that the stipulated sixteen percent (16%) rate was fair.
• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, et al., 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Cited as prevailing jurisprudence for the imposition of interest at six percent (6%) per annum on the total monetary awards from finality of the decision until full satisfaction.

• Article 1159, Civil Code — Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. The Court applied this provision to hold respondents bound by the promissory notes, the real estate mortgage contract, and the Continuing Surety Agreement they voluntarily executed, and to reject the Court of Appeals' equitable dismissal of the deficiency claim.
• Article 2226, Civil Code — Liquidated damages. The Court applied this provision in characterizing the surcharge or penalty stipulated in the loan agreement in case of default as liquidated damages, separate and distinct from interest payment, and in treating the penalty clause as an accessory undertaking assuming greater liability upon breach.
• Article 2227, Civil Code — Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. This provision, together with Article 1229, furnished the basis for reducing the eighteen percent (18%) penalty charge to twelve percent (12%) per annum.
• Article 1229, Civil Code — The judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor; even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable. The Court invoked this provision because Metrobank had already recovered a large portion of the principal obligation through the foreclosure sale.
• Act No. 3135 — The law governing extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages. The Court held that it is silent as to the mortgagee's right to recover a deficiency but does not prohibit recovery; that it contains no requirement for the determination of the mortgaged properties' appraisal value and no rule or guideline prescribing a minimum bid; and that it only provides the requirements, procedure, venue, and the mortgagor's right to redeem the property.

Velasco, Jr., J. (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concurred.