Rivero v. Rivero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dionisio Moreno sold one half of his land to Godofredo Padua on April 16, 1941, with a right to repurchase within two years. He sold the other half to Antonia Texon on the same date, also with a right to repurchase within two years. Antonia Texon later sold her half to Godofredo Padua on October 30, 1941. The period for redemption for both halves expired on April 16, 1943. On January 14, 1944, Dionisio Moreno sold his interest in the whole land to the plaintiff, Primitivo Rivero. Procedural History: On August 24, 1945, the plaintiff filed an action against Godofredo Padua (erroneously named Alfredo Padua) and Victoriano Rivero. The case against Victoriano Rivero was dismissed. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's action. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The plaintiff-appellant contended that the recent war in the Philippines suspended the running of the period for redemption due to chaotic, unsettled, and dangerous conditions that made compliance with obligations impossible.
Issue(s)
Whether the period for redemption in a sale with pacto de retro is suspended due to the chaotic conditions during the war. Whether the plaintiff-appellant's offer of redemption in May 1944 was timely.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, dismissing the plaintiff's action. The period for redemption was not suspended, and the offer to redeem was made after the period had elapsed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the period for redemption in a sale with pacto de retro is suspended due to the chaotic conditions during the war: The Court held that the period for redemption was not suspended. The lower court found, through judicial notice, that the courts in Camarines Sur were open and transacting business from October 1942 until 1944. This finding, not assigned as erroneous by the appellant, refuted his contention. The fundamental reason for suspending periods of limitation is legal or physical impossibility to enforce a right. Even if the defendant-appellee was a 'guerrillero' and difficult to contact, this did not prevent the plaintiff-appellant from exercising his right. The plaintiff-appellant could have filed a suit and made a consignation of the redemption price with the court, as provided by Article 1176 of the Civil Code, in case the creditor refused to accept payment or was absent. The principle of ad imposibilia nemo tenetur (no one is held to impossible things) was not applicable here because the plaintiff had a legal recourse. On whether the plaintiff-appellant's offer of redemption in May 1944 was timely: The Court found that the period of two years for redemption expired on April 16, 1943. The first and only offer of redemption made to the appellees was in May 1944, which was over a year after the redemption period had elapsed. Therefore, the offer was not timely. The dictum in España vs. Lucido, cited by the appellant, regarding the suspension of statutes of limitation by war when courts are interrupted, was not applicable because the courts in Camarines Sur were open and functioning since October 1942.
Main Doctrine
The period for redemption in a sale with pacto de retro is not suspended by war or chaotic conditions if the courts were open and transacting business, as the debtor can still exercise the right of redemption through consignation.