FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-4322. March 26, 1908. ]
INOCENTE MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. G. E. CAMPBELL, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
G. E. Campbell, for Appellants.
Gibbs and Gale, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. REALTY; PUBLIC AUCTION; REDEMPTION; TENDER. — When the right of redemption is exercised within the term fixed by section 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and an offer is made of the amount due for the repurchase of the property to which said right refers, it is neither reasonable nor just that the repurchaser should pay interest on the redemption money after the time when he offered to repurchase and tendered the money therefor.
2. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; REVIEW. — When a motion for a new trial has not been made, the statement of facts set forth as proven in the judgment appealed from must be accepted . This court has not jurisdiction to review the same upon appeal, but is only called upon to resolve questions of law set up by the Appellant.
2. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; REVIEW. — When a motion for a new trial has not been made, the statement of facts set forth as proven in the judgment appealed from must be accepted . This court has not jurisdiction to review the same upon appeal, but is only called upon to resolve questions of law set up by the Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
TORRES, J.:
The debtor, Inocente Martinez, whose property was sold at public auction by virtue of the judgment entered by the judge of First Instance of La Laguna, attempted to exercise his right of redemption within the term fixed by section 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and on the 29th of March, 1907, offered, to that end, the sum of P479 for the repurchase of the three parcels of land sold, but the sheriff declined to receive the money because it did not agree with the amount named and the instructions given by the purchaser, G. E. Campbell.
The latter, by himself and in the name of the sheriff, admitted the greater part of the allegations contained in the complaint but denied that the sum offered was the said amount, and added as a special defense that the 29th day of March was an official holiday.
The court below found that, under the agreement entered into between the parties, the term for redemption expired on the 31st of March, 1907; that the offer made on the 29th was repeated on the 30th of said month, although the sheriff unlawfully refused to accept it, notwithstanding the fact that the right to redemption might validly have been exercised up to the 30th day of the said month.
No motion for a new trial having been presented, the conclusions contained in the judgment appealed from must be accepted, as the law does not permit a review thereof.
Taking into consideration that the decision of the court below is in accordance with the law, and that no legal reason or ground has been adduced for its reversal, and that it is not proper that the person having the right of redemption should pay interest after the 30th day of March, 1907, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with the costs against the appellant, It is the duty of the court below to appoint a reasonable term within which the plaintiff shall pay in the amount due, with interest thereon up to the 30th day of March, 1907, only. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Johnson. J., disqualified.
The latter, by himself and in the name of the sheriff, admitted the greater part of the allegations contained in the complaint but denied that the sum offered was the said amount, and added as a special defense that the 29th day of March was an official holiday.
The court below found that, under the agreement entered into between the parties, the term for redemption expired on the 31st of March, 1907; that the offer made on the 29th was repeated on the 30th of said month, although the sheriff unlawfully refused to accept it, notwithstanding the fact that the right to redemption might validly have been exercised up to the 30th day of the said month.
No motion for a new trial having been presented, the conclusions contained in the judgment appealed from must be accepted, as the law does not permit a review thereof.
Taking into consideration that the decision of the court below is in accordance with the law, and that no legal reason or ground has been adduced for its reversal, and that it is not proper that the person having the right of redemption should pay interest after the 30th day of March, 1907, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with the costs against the appellant, It is the duty of the court below to appoint a reasonable term within which the plaintiff shall pay in the amount due, with interest thereon up to the 30th day of March, 1907, only. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.
Johnson. J., disqualified.
