EXTINGUISHMENT OF SALE CASE DIGESTS

Cebu State College of Science and Tech vs Misterio

Facts: Asuncion Sandaya, the mother of the respondents, executed a deed of sale over a parcel of lot in
Lahug, Cebu in favor of Sudlon Agricultural Highschool. The sale was subject to the right of the vendor to
repurchase the property after SAHS shall have ceased to exist or if it transfers its school site anywhere.
The Provincial Board of Cebu donated 41 parcels of land to SAHS on the condition that the ownership of
the current lot reverts back to the province and that SAHS could not alienate lease or encumber the
properties. BP 412 AN Act Converting the Cebu School of Arts and Trades into a Chartered College to be
Known as CSCST. SASH was included. Province of Cebu sought to recover the 41 parcels saying that SAHS
does not have personality to accept donation and therefore the deed was void. Respondents informed
the Gov of Cebu and petitioners of their intention to repurchase the subject property. Petitioners
contends that SAHS still exists and that it only has a different name. Respondents filed a complaint
arguing that the deed of sale should be null and void because at the time of the execution SAHS had no
juridical personality. They also contended that SAHS ceased to exist with the enactment of BP 412. The
RTC granted this complaint. CA reversed decision saying that the respondents are barred by prescription
from exercising their right to repurchase. 4 years after the effectivity of BP 412.

Issue: Whether respondents can still exercise their right to repurchase the subject property.

Ruling: No. The SC held that in cases of conventional redemption when the vendor a retro reserves his
right to repurchase the property, the parties should observe the parameters in Art. 1606 saying that the
right of repurchase will only last 4 years if there is no express or implied agreement to the contrary. If
there is an agreement, then the period should not exceed 10 years. In the case at bar, the parties did not
agree on any period, therefore, the respondents can only exercise such right within 4 years from the
happening of the condition.

Catangcatang vs. Legayada

Facts: Legayada executed a deed of sale in favor of Catangcatang .It included a five year redemption
period. Catangcatang discovered that the area of the land delivered to her was smaller than the agreed
area. This prompted her to file a civil case praying for the recovery of the withheld area. Respondent
filed a counter claim seeking the rescisiion of the deed of sale saying that Catangcatang failed to pay the
remaining balance upon due date. During the pendency of the action. Legayada forcibly took back the
possession of the land from the petitioner. The period of repurchase expired without the respondent
exercising it. The CFI dismissed the complaint and counterclaim. Catangcatang then instituted a petition
for consolidation of title and restoration of possession. Legayada said he has already exercised his right
of repurchase because he took possession of the property before the expiration date and that he has
given the repurchase amount to the undersigned counsel to be given to Catangcatang. CFI held that the
repurchase was not effected and therefore declared the title in the name of Catangcatang. The CA
reversed this decision saying that failure to pay the full purchase price suspends the running of the
period of redemption.

Issue: Whether the period of redemption has already expired.

Alonzo vs. IAC

Facts: Five siblings inherited in equal shares a parcel of land. One of them, Celstino Padua, transferred
his share to the petitioners. Eustaquia Padua also sold her shares to the same vendees. Petitioners now
occupied 2/5 of the said lot. They enclosed the lot with a fence and their son Eduardo Alonzo built a
house on the area. Tecla Padua, a co heir sought to recover the land sold to the petitioner but this was
dismissed by the trial court saying that the 30 day period from notice of the sale for when Tecla can
exercise such right has already elapsed.

Issue: Whether or not there was valid notice to the co-heirs in this case considering that there was no
written notice as required in Article 1623 and Assuming there was a valid notice, whether or not the 30
day period for redemption had expired

HELD: 
1. YES. It is cardinal rule that, in seeking the meaning of the law, the first concern of the judge
should be to discover in its provisions the intent of the lawmaker. By requiring written proof of
such notice, the court would be closing their eyes to the obvious truth in favor of respondents’
palpably false claim of ignorance, thus exalting the letter of the law over its purpose. The
purpose of the law is clear enough: to make sure that the redemptioners are duly notified. The
court is satisfied that in this case the other brothers and sisters were actually informed,
although not in writing, of the sales made in 1963 and 1964, and that such notice was sufficient.

2. YES. While the court do not here declare that the period started from the dates of such sales in
1963 and 1964, the court do say that sometime between those years and 1976, when the first
complaint for redemption was filed, the other co-heirs were actually informed of the sale and
that thereafter the 30-day period started running and ultimately expired. This could have
happened any time during the interval of 13 years, when none of the co-heirs made a move to
redeem the properties sold. By 1977, in other words, the right of redemption had already been
extinguished because the period of or its exercise had already expired.

Lee Chuy Realty Corporation vs CA

Facts: A land in Meycauayan Bulacan is disputed by petitioner and private respondent (Marc Realty).
Originally the land was co-owned by Ruben Jacinto who owns 1/6 and Dominador, Liwayway, Arsenio all
surnamed Bascara and Ernesto Jacinto who owns the remaining 5/6. Ruben sold his share to Lee Chuy
Realty. The Bascaras and Ernesto also sold theirshares to Marc Realty. Lee Chuy contends that it was
never informed of the subsequent sale and that it was only upon its inquiry in the reg of deeds of
Bulacan that they discovered such sale. Marc Realty insists that Lee Chuy was verbally notified of the
sale and was given a copy of the deed of sale. Lee Chuy filed a complaint against Marc Realty. Marc
Realty says that the complaint should be dismissed because it fails to state a cause of action because
there was no prior valid tender of payment nor prior valid notice of consignation. RTC ruled in favor of
Lee Chuy saying that the filing of the action itself within the period of redemption is considered a formal
offer to redeem. The CA reversed the ruling of the RTC and said that a prior tender or offer of
redemption is a prerequisite to the filing of an action of legal redemption, because the policy of the law
is not to leave the purchaser’s title in uncertainty beyond the established 30 day period.

Issue: Whether prior tender of payment is a condition precedent to the filing of an action in order to
exercise legal redemption

Ruling: No. There is no prescribed form for an offer to redeem to be properly effected. Therefore, the
right to redeem may be exercised through a formal tender of the purchase price with consignation or by
filing a complaint in court coupled with consignation of the redemption price within the 30 day period.

Gregorio vs VDA De Culig

Facts: Respondent is the widow of Alfredo Culig Sr who was granted a homestead patent over a parcel
of land. Upon Alfredo’s death, his heirs, including the respondent executed an extrajudicial settlement
of estate with sale of the property to the petitioner. Respondent filed a complaint demanding the
repurchase of the property under the provisions of the Public Land Act and contends that she
approached the petitioners to pay back the 25k to repurchase the property but the petitioners refused.
Petitioners countered by saying that they have no right to repurchase since they only want to redeem
the property to sell it for a greater profit. RTC dismissed the complaint and ruled that formal offer alone
or the filing of a case alone within the prescribed period of 5 years is not sufficient to effect a valid offer
to redeem. It must be coupled with consignation.

Issue: Whether the respondent can exercise the right of redemption even without consignation of the
purchase price.

Ruling: Yes. Consignation should not be considered as a requisite element for the rpurchase of
homestead patent lots. It is not necessary in a sale with a right of repurchase because it involves an
exercise of a right rather than the discharge of an obligation. Tender of payment therefore, is sufficient
to preserve a right or privilege.