Wenceslao v. Calimon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-appellees sought to exercise their right of legal redemption over a four-fifth part of a parcel of land, which the defendant-appellant had purchased. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Bulacan rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees, ordering the defendant to resell the property. The defendant appealed this decision. The Appeal: The defendant-appellant raised three principal issues on appeal: (1) the period of nine days for redemption, (2) the price of repurchase, and (3) the capacity of the redeemers. The appellant argued that the redemption period had expired and questioned the validity of the redeemers' capacity and the offer made on their behalf.
Issue(s)
Whether the period for legal redemption had expired against the minor plaintiffs. Whether the price of repurchase was correctly determined. Whether the plaintiffs had the legal capacity to redeem the property. Whether the offer to redeem made by the natural guardian was valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, upholding the right of legal redemption of the plaintiffs-appellees. The Court ruled that the period for redemption had not expired against the minors and that the offer to redeem was valid. The costs of the instance were assessed against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Period of Redemption): The Court held that even if the nine-day period stipulated in Article 1524 of the Civil Code were applicable, it could not have run against the plaintiffs because they were minors and had no legal guardian. The principle contra non valentem agere non currit præscriptio was invoked, recognizing that prescription does not run against those who are unable to act. This principle is enshrined in Philippine substantive law and explicitly recognized in Sections 42 and 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the period for redemption had not expired against the minor plaintiffs. On Issue 2 (Price of Repurchase): The Court found that the evidence sufficiently established that the defendant paid P7,700 and a note for P5,000, the effectiveness of which was contingent upon the defendant taking possession of the land. This finding supported the determination of the repurchase price. The Court also noted that the plaintiffs could only exercise their right of redemption by reimbursing the purchaser with the purchase price paid by him, as per Article 1067 of the Civil Code. On Issue 3 (Capacity of Redeemers and Validity of Offer): The Court affirmed the validity of the offer to redeem made by Urbano Wenceslao on behalf of his children, the herein plaintiffs. It was established that Urbano Wenceslao is the natural guardian of his children and represented them in court and out of court. The Court distinguished this offer from an act of administration of property, characterizing it instead as a representation of his children in their rights. The Court also clarified that the lack of funds to make the redemption does not affect the existence of the right itself, although it may render its exercise inefficacious until the purchase price is reimbursed. On Issue 4 (Admission of Affidavit Exhibit A): The Court found no error in the admission of the affidavit Exhibit A. It reasoned that those who signed the affidavit had subsequently testified in court contrary to what was stated in the document, which is permissible under Section 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This testimony in court superseded the affidavit's contents.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the right of legal redemption for minors, emphasizing that the prescriptive period for redemption does not run against them due to their minority and lack of a legal guardian, invoking the principle contra non valentem agere non currit præscriptio. The Court also clarified that while the lack of funds may impede the exercise of the right of redemption, it does not extinguish the right itself. Furthermore, it held that an offer to redeem made by a natural guardian on behalf of his minor children is valid, as it constitutes an act of representation of their rights rather than an act of administration.