Alfaro Fortunado v. Court of Appeals

Summary

Petitioners Alfaro Fortunado et al. sought mandamus to compel execution of final deed of sale after purchasing properties at auction following judgment in their favor against Angel Bautista. National Steel Corporation and Bautista redeemed the properties using a check payment, with Bautista making reservations about the validity of the execution sale. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' denial of mandamus, holding that redemption by check is valid as redemption is a privilege rather than an obligation, following the Javellana v. Mirasol precedent. The Court distinguished cases requiring legal tender payment as involving obligations rather than rights. Both NSC's and Bautista's redemptions were deemed valid and unconditional, despite Bautista's initial reservations and attempted repudiation. The decision reinforces the liberal construction given to redemption laws and recognizes alternative reliefs as permissible legal strategy.