Perez v. Aquino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Fidel D. Aquino was the bona fide tenant of a 5,000-square meter parcel of land originally owned by the late Luis Cardona and later transferred to his heirs. In 1994, the Cardona heirs sold the land to petitioner Cita C. Perez for ₱20,000.00. Respondent filed a complaint for redemption on January 15, 2002, alleging violation of his right of pre-emption and petitioner's lack of good faith due to prior knowledge of his occupancy. Procedural History: The PARAD ruled in favor of respondent, declaring him entitled to redeem the land due to the lack of written notice of the sale and his status as a legitimate tenant. The DARAB reversed this, stating respondent failed to validly exercise his right of redemption by not consigning the purchase price. The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the PARAD's decision, holding that the prescriptive period for redemption never commenced due to the absence of written notice. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the CA erred in ruling that respondent is entitled to redeem the subject land.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent is entitled to redeem the subject land, considering the requirements for valid redemption under RA 3844. Whether, despite the failure to validly exercise the right of redemption, the respondent's tenancy status should be respected.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Decision dated July 31, 2014 and the Resolution dated March 5, 2015 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated November 29, 2013 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent validly exercised his right of redemption: The Court held that while respondent is an agricultural lessee and the sale was made without prior written notice to him and the DAR, thus preventing prescription from running, he failed to validly exercise his right of redemption. Section 12 of RA 3844, as amended, requires that the right of redemption be exercised within 180 days from written notice, and case law mandates that an offer to redeem must be accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of payment of the full amount of the repurchase price. This tender can be effected through a formal tender with consignation or by filing a complaint coupled with consignation of the redemption price within the prescribed period. The rationale behind this requirement is to ensure that the offer is made seriously and in good faith, and to provide certainty to the buyer. In this case, respondent filed a complaint for redemption but failed to consign the redemption price of ₱20,000.00 when he filed the complaint on January 15, 2002. This failure rendered his offer to redeem ineffectual, despite the absence of written notice of the sale. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint for redemption is in order. On the issue of the respondent's tenancy status: The Court emphasized that petitioner, as the new owner, is bound to respect respondent's tenancy status, as the agricultural leasehold relationship is not terminated by changes in ownership.
Main Doctrine
The exercise of the right of redemption by an agricultural lessee under Section 12 of RA 3844, as amended, requires not only the filing of a complaint but also the consignation of the redemption price within the prescribed period. Failure to consign the redemption price renders the exercise of the right ineffectual.