Alberto v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellant Severino Alberto sought to redeem a parcel of land sold on execution sale by the Sheriff of Bulacan to other defendants in March 1941. The certificate of sale indicated the redemption period should expire on March 22, 1942. Procedural History: The complaint was dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan upon motion of the appellees, on the ground that the complaint does not state a cause of action. The dismissal was based on the plaintiff's contention that the period of redemption was extended or interrupted due to the war declared on December 8, 1941. The Petition: The plaintiff-appellant appealed the dismissal order, arguing that the war suspended the period of redemption.
Issue(s)
Whether the period of redemption of property sold on execution is suspended or interrupted by war. Whether the plaintiff-appellant could have exercised his right of redemption despite the war.
Ruling
The appealed order of dismissal is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the period of redemption is suspended or interrupted by war: The plaintiff's contention that the period of redemption was suspended or interrupted by the war is untenable. The period for redemption is not a limitation of action. Even if considered as such, the fundamental reason for the suspension or extension of periods of limitation is the legal or physical impossibility for the interested party to enforce or exercise their right in time. The war did not make it impossible for the plaintiff to exercise his right of redemption. On the issue of whether the plaintiff could have exercised his right of redemption despite the war: The war did not prevent the plaintiff-appellant from exercising his right during the period of redemption. The vendor who redeems property sold with pacto de retro stands as the debtor, and the vendee as the creditor of the repurchase price. The plaintiff-appellant could and should have exercised his right of redemption against the defendant-appellee, if the latter was absent, by filing a suit and making a consignation with the court of the amount due for the redemption, pursuant to Article 1176 of the Civil Code. This article provides that if the creditor refuses to accept payment without reason, the debtor may relieve himself of liability by consignation. Consignation alone produces the same effect when made due to the absence of the creditor, or if the latter is incapacitated to accept payment, or when several persons claim the right to receive it, or when the muniments of the obligation have been lost or mislaid.
Main Doctrine
The period of redemption of property sold on execution is not suspended or interrupted by war, as war does not render it legally or physically impossible for the redemptioner to exercise the right of redemption, especially when the redemptioner can avail of consignation.