Torrijos v. Crisologo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Guillermo and Anastacio Crisologo sold a parcel of land with a house thereon to petitioner Antonio Torrijos on April 26, 1940, for P3,050.00, with a right to repurchase within three years. The deed of sale a retro was registered. On July 27, 1948, the Crisologos filed an action to compel Torrijos to resell the property. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Abra ordered the registration of the land in Torrijos' name, subject to the Crisologos' right to repurchase within sixty days for P25,913.95. The Court of Appeals modified this, reducing the repurchase price. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. Torrijos' petition was dismissed on February 7, 1956, and the Crisologos' on March 15, 1956. In its original decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. However, in an amended decision, it reversed its stand, holding that a bona fide offer to repurchase made within the redemption period, though refused, preserved the vendor's right of action. The Petition: This case is an appeal by way of certiorari against the amended decision of the Court of Appeals, which confirmed the registration of the land in Torrijos' name but subject to the Crisologos' right to repurchase within thirty days from the finality of the decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Crisologos' offer to repurchase, coupled with a deposit of only P2,000.00, was sufficient to preserve their right of repurchase despite the refusal of the vendee and the expiration of the redemption period fixed by judicial decree. Whether the amended decision of the Court of Appeals, which granted an extended period for repurchase, was proper despite a prior final judgment that had already fixed the redemption period and amount.
Ruling
The amended decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside, and its original decision is affirmed. The registration of the land in the name of Antonio Torrijos is confirmed, without the right of repurchase for Guillermo and Anastacio Crisologo.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the offer to repurchase and the deposit: The Court held that the previous judgment of the Court of Appeals, which was later dismissed by the Supreme Court, had definitively settled the respective rights of the parties. The Crisologos were obliged to effect the repurchase not only by offering the full amount of P19,313.95 but also by doing so within the period of 60 days. The Court reiterated the principle that it is not sufficient for the vendor to intimate a desire to redeem; they must offer to repay the price, and if refused, the amount must be deposited with the clerk of court. In this case, the Crisologos only deposited P2,000.00, which was insufficient to preserve their right of redemption. The Court found no sufficient evidence that they had the full amount and offered to return it to effect the redemption, creating grave doubts about their actual possession of the necessary funds. The cited cases by the Court of Appeals, which allowed redemption despite refusal, were distinguished as they did not involve a prior final judgment that had already fixed the redemption period and amount. On the propriety of the amended decision extending the repurchase period: The Court found the amended decision of the Court of Appeals to be absurd. The effect of the amended decision was to settle a matter already settled by a prior judicial pronouncement in a manner that wholly nullified the former judgment. The original judgment granted the Crisologos 60 days to redeem from March 1956, but the amended decision granted them 30 days from September 1962, effectively extending the redemption period by six years due to Torrijos' refusal to allow redemption. The Court reasoned that if Torrijos' refusal suspended the period, it could lead to an indefinite extension of the redemption period, which is contrary to the finality of judgments. The Court concluded that the only remedy to prevent such an absurd situation was to hold that since Torrijos refused to permit the redemption, the Crisologos should have deposited or consigned the full amount of the price with the court, as provided in Article 1256 of the Civil Code.
Main Doctrine
When a final judgment fixes the period and amount for redemption under a pacto de retro sale, the vendor's failure to tender the full repurchase price within the stipulated period, even if a bona fide offer to repurchase was made and refused, results in the irrevocability of the sale, unless the full amount is consigned with the court.