FACTS:
The Supreme Court, in its earlier decision affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision that Raymundo Crystal’s redemption of the property acquired by private respondents was invalid as the check which petitioner used in paying the redemption price has been either dishonored or had become stale.
ISSUE(S):
Whether the conflicting circumstances of the check being dishonored and becoming stale affect the validity of the redemption sale.
HELD:
YES. For a check to be dishonored upon presentment on the one hand, and to be stale for not being presented at all in time on the other hand are incompatible developments that naturally have variant legal consequences. Thus, if indeed the check in question had been dishonored then there can be no doubt that petitioner’s redemption was null and void. On the other hand, if it had only be come stale, then it becomes imperative that the circumstances that caused its non-presentment be determined, for if this was not due to the fault of the petitioner, then it would be unfair to deprive him of the rights he had acquired as redemptioner, particularly, if, after all, the value of the check has otherwise been received or realized by the party concerned.
