Cruz v. Resureccion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs Doroteo de la Cruz and Julia Robles sold a parcel of land to defendants Rafael L. Resurreccion and Almeda, Francisco and Co. under pacto de retro on January 28, 1949, with a stipulation for redemption within three years. On September 2, 1951, Doroteo de la Cruz offered to redeem the land but did not have the money. Defendant Resurreccion allegedly dissuaded him and offered a premium. De la Cruz promised to return with his wife but never did. On October 17, 1951, De la Cruz deposited P1,350 with the clerk of court. On November 5, 1951, the plaintiffs instituted an action to redeem the land and have the defendants execute a deed of resale. It was also noted that the De la Cruz spouses had sold their rights to Narciso Aligada, subject to the pacto de retro sale. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Masbate rendered judgment recognizing the plaintiffs' right to repurchase the land, ordering the defendants to execute a deed of resale and accept the P1,350 deposited, less damages for the plaintiffs at P67.50 per quarter from November 15, 1951, until delivery, and deducting P19.25 for expenses incurred by the defendants. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals and certified to the Supreme Court due to purely legal questions. The Petition: The defendants-appellants argued that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the legal requirements for redemption within the stipulated period, resulting in the irrevocable acquisition of ownership by the defendants. The plaintiffs-appellants contended that they had substantially complied with the requirements for consignation and that their tender of payment preserved their right to redemption.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiffs' offer to redeem the land and subsequent deposit with the clerk of court, despite alleged non-compliance with formal requirements of consignation, was sufficient to preserve their right of redemption within the stipulated period. Whether the sale of the land by the original vendors to a third party during the redemption period, subject to the pacto de retro sale, forfeited their right to redeem.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, upholding the plaintiffs' right to redeem the land. The Court ruled that a bona fide offer or tender of the redemption price within the stipulated period is sufficient to preserve the vendor's right of redemption, even if the formal requirements of consignation were not strictly met, especially when an action is filed to enforce the right. The sale to a third party, being subject to the pacto de retro, did not extinguish the right to redeem.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the offer and deposit for redemption: The Court found merit in the plaintiffs' contention that their right to redeem was preserved. It noted that Doroteo de la Cruz made an offer to redeem on September 2, 1951, well before the expiration of the redemption period. When the defendants allegedly attempted to dissuade him and offered a premium, the plaintiffs promptly deposited the repurchase money with the clerk of court and filed the present action to enforce their right. These actions were deemed more than sufficient to preserve their right of redemption. The Court emphasized that the crucial element is the tender of payment made within the stipulated period. Whether all technical requirements for a valid consignation were met was considered of no consequence in light of the bona fide offer and the subsequent filing of the action. The Court cited jurisprudence, specifically Rosales vs. Reyes and Ordaveza and Canuto vs. Mariano, which established the settled rule that a bona fide offer or tender of the price, when refused, is sufficient to preserve the vendor's right of action without the necessity of judicial deposit. Furthermore, the filing of an action to enforce redemption "tolls the term for the right of redemption," as held in Ong Chua vs. Carr. On the effect of the sale to a third party: The defendants' contention that the plaintiffs forfeited their right to redeem because they sold their rights to Narciso Aligada was also deemed untenable. The Court observed that this sale was made subject to the pacto de retro sale to the defendants. The stipulation that part of the purchase price from Aligada would be applied to the redemption payment was considered an implicit recognition by the vendee of the plaintiffs' right to redeem within the stipulated period. Moreover, the Court noted that this defense, if valid, could only be set up by Aligada himself and not by the defendants.
Main Doctrine
A bona fide offer or tender of the redemption price within the stipulated period is sufficient to preserve the vendor's right of redemption, even if the consignation is not strictly in accordance with legal requirements, especially when an action is filed to enforce the right.