Rosales v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 29, 1902, Rivera sold a parcel of land to Reyes and Ordoveza for 800 pesos under a pacto de retro sale, with the condition that repurchase could not be made until after three years from the date of the contract. Rivera stated he was of legal age in this document. On May 29, 1903, Rivera sold his right to repurchase to Rosales for 1,075 pesos, stating he was 23 years of age in this subsequent document. In January 1908, Rosales tendered 800 pesos to Reyes and Ordoveza to repurchase the land, but they refused to accept the money and surrender the property. Procedural History: The plaintiff, Rosales, filed a complaint seeking to annul the contract and compel the defendants to surrender the land. The defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint, alleging that it did not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. The lower court sustained the demurrer. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed the decision of the lower court sustaining the demurrer.
Issue(s)
Whether the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, considering the alleged inconsistency in the prayer for relief. Whether the right to repurchase had expired before the plaintiff attempted to exercise it. Whether the complaint is defective for failing to allege the judicial deposit of the redemption price upon the defendants' refusal to surrender the property.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. The judgment sustaining the demurrer was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged inconsistency in the prayer for relief: The Court held that the demand in the complaint is not part of the statement of the cause of action and does not give it character; the facts alleged do this, and the plaintiff is entitled to as much relief as they warrant. The inconsistency, if any, appeared in the prayer for relief, which does not affect the cause of action. Furthermore, the contract of 1902 could not be annulled because Rivera ratified it by entering into the contract with Rosales in 1903, wherein he stated he was 23 years of age, making applicable Article 1311 of the Civil Code regarding implied confirmation. On whether the right to repurchase had expired: The Court interpreted Article 1508 of the Civil Code. It held that the stipulation that repurchase could not be made within three years from the date of the contract meant that the four-year redemption period, in the absence of an express agreement, would commence after the expiration of the three-year prohibition. Therefore, the redemption period would effectively run for four years from July 29, 1905 (three years after the contract date), and would not expire until July 29, 1909. Since the offer to repurchase was made in January 1908, it was within the redemption period. The Court reasoned that a stipulation suspending the right to repurchase for a certain time benefits both parties and that the redemption period should be calculated from the day the right may be freely exercised, subject to the ten-year limitation. On the necessity of judicial deposit of the redemption price: The Court held that an offer of the money, where the sum required is fixed and certain, is sufficient to preserve the vendor's right of action when the vendee refuses to accept it. The Court distinguished this from procedural rules of the Spanish Code of Civil Procedure, which are no longer in effect. It cited previous rulings in Brusas vs. Infante, Lafont vs. Pascasio, Villegas vs. Capistrano, and Fructo vs. Fuentes, which established the settled rule that a bona fide offer of the redemption price is sufficient, and a judicial deposit is not necessary when the offer is refused. The Court clarified that the remarks in Angao vs. Clavano regarding the necessity of deposit were obiter dictum and not the settled rule in the jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
In a sale with pacto de retro, where there is a stipulation that repurchase cannot be made within a certain period, the redemption period is calculated from the expiration of that period, subject to the ten-year limitation. Furthermore, a bona fide offer to pay the redemption price, when refused by the vendee, is sufficient to preserve the vendor's right of action, and a judicial deposit is not necessary.