Lucido v. Calupitan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Chattels and real estate belonging to plaintiff Leonardo Lucido were sold at an execution sale on February 10, 1903, to one Rosales, who transferred a one-half interest to Zolaivar. On March 30, 1903, a public document was executed by Rosales, Zolaivar, Lucido, and defendant Gelasio Calupitan, wherein Rosales and Zolaivar, with Lucido's consent, sold their rights and obligations pertaining to the property to Calupitan for P1,687 Mexican dollars plus interest. On the same day, Lucido and Calupitan executed another document wherein Calupitan certified that he had ceded to Lucido all the irrigated lands and certain furniture until Lucido could repurchase them, with the real agreement being that three years would elapse from the date of the instrument before Lucido could redeem them. Procedural History: The lower court held that the document constituted a sale with the right to conventional redemption under articles 1507 et seq. of the Civil Code. The action was instituted on February 17, 1910. The lower court ruled that the redemption period had not expired, finding that Lucido had offered the redemption price prior to the institution of the action, which constituted sufficient compliance with article 1518 of the Civil Code. The lower court ordered the property to be returned to the plaintiff. The defendant appealed. The Petition: The defendant appealed the lower court's rulings on the nature of the transaction, the expiration of the redemption period, and the sufficiency of the tender of the redemption price.
Issue(s)
Whether the transaction between Lucido and Calupitan constituted a sale with the right to conventional redemption. Whether the redemption period had expired at the time the action was filed. Whether the plaintiff's offer of the redemption price was a sufficient compliance with the legal requirements for redemption.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, ordering the defendants Calupitan and Dorado to deliver possession of the land to the plaintiff upon deposit of P1,600.74 Philippine currency with the clerk of court. The Court held that the transaction was a sale with the right to conventional redemption, that the redemption period had not expired, and that the plaintiff's tender of the redemption price was sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the transaction: The Court held that the transaction was a sale with the right to conventional redemption. While the initial document executed by the execution purchasers and the parties indicated an assignment of rights and obligations, the subsequent agreement between Lucido and Calupitan explicitly preserved Lucido's right to redeem the property after three years. This preservation of the right to repurchase, coupled with Calupitan's own admission in his original answer that the transaction was a sale with the right to repurchase governed by the Civil Code, removed any doubt as to the character of the transaction. The Court noted that the intervention of Lucido as an interested party in the transfer from the execution purchasers to Calupitan further indicated an intention beyond a simple assignment. On the expiration of the redemption period: The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the redemption period had not expired. The agreement stipulated that redemption could not occur within three years from March 30, 1903. The lower court computed five years from March 30, 1906, as the expiration date, reasoning that there was no express agreement on how long the right to repurchase, once available, should continue. The Court found this computation correct, citing Rosales vs. Reyes and Ordoveza, and noted that the complaint was filed forty-three days before the expiration of this period. The dissenting opinion argued that the four-year period under Article 1508 of the Civil Code should have been counted from the date of the contract (March 30, 1903), not from the expiration of the three-year suspension period, thus rendering the redemption period expired. On the sufficiency of the tender of the redemption price: The Court concurred with the lower court's finding that the plaintiff had tendered the redemption price to the defendant Calupitan. The Court found this tender to be legally sufficient, referencing its prior ruling in Rosales vs. Reyes and Ordoveza. Therefore, this assignment of error by the defendant was deemed unfounded. The Court also addressed the issue of payment, noting that the amount paid to redeem the property from the execution sale was $1,720.74 Mexican dollars, of which Lucido furnished $120 Mexican dollars and Calupitan the balance. The Court ordered the amount of P1,600.74 Philippine currency to be deposited with the clerk of court due to uncertainty as to whom it should be paid, Calupitan or Dorado, who had purchased the land from Calupitan.
Main Doctrine
The period for conventional redemption, in the absence of an express stipulation, is four years from the date of the contract. However, if the parties stipulate a period, it shall not exceed ten years. A stipulation that the right to redeem cannot be exercised within a certain period does not extend the statutory redemption period but rather suspends the commencement of the running of the period.