Assignment #8

To allow the seller a period beyond 10 years for the exercise of such right would go against
the spirit of the law. The latter being intended to limit uncertain conditions relative to the title
I. Extinguishment of Sale (Articles 1600-1623, New Civil Code) to real estate. It was said that longer periods of redemption works to the detriment of the
property since a buyer, who is uncertain of his rights, will not cultivate or preserve the
Cases: property in the same way that an absolute owner will. Decision reversed and set aside.

1. Cebu State College of Science and Technology (CSCST) vs. Misterio, 759 SCRA 1, 2. Catangcatang vs. Legayada, 84 SCRA 51
G.R. No. 179025 June 17, 2015
FACTS:
RULE SYNOPSIS Respondent executed in favor of petitioner a deed of sale with pacto de retro, with a five-year
When the exercise of the right to redeem of a vendor-a-retro is subject to a suspensive period of redemption, over a parcel of land situated at Lambunao, Iloilo, with a stated area of
condition, the period for the exercise shall be four years from the happening of the condition 8.8272 hectares more or less, for a specified consideration of P1,400.00. Of the total
or 10 years from the execution of the contract of sale, whichever comes first. consideration, the amount of P1,200.00 was paid upon the execution of the deed and the
balance of P200.00, covered by a promissory note, was agreed to be payable at a later date.
CASE SUMMARY
On Dec 31, 1956, Asuncion Sadaya (seller) sold her registered land to Sudlon Agricultural Subsequently, petitioner found that the area of the land actually delivered to her was only
High School or SAHS (buyer), subject to the seller’s right of repurchase after SAHS shall 5.0779 hectares. Thus, on January 22, 1957, she instituted Civil Case No. 2635 against
have ceased to exist, or shall have transferred its school site elsewhere. The right to repurchase respondent, seeking the recovery of the area allegedly withheld. During the pendency of the
was annotated on SAHS title. case, respondent forcibly took back the possession of the land from petitioner. The period for
the repurchase of the land expired, allegedly without respondent having availed himself of his
On June 10, 1983, B.P. No. 412 took effect consolidating SAHS with Cebu State College of right to repurchase the same. The CFI of Iloilo dismissed the complaint, having found that the
Science and Technology (CSCST), and transferring its properties thereon. On Aug 19, 1988, parcel of land subject matter of the deed of sale was described by metes and bounds, as shown
[32 years] the heirs of Sadaya sought to repurchase the subject property, notifying the by Tax Declaration No. 4156, and has an actual area of 5.0779 hectares.
governor of the Province of Cebu on the ground that SAHS ceased to exist. CSCST refused
saying SAHS still existed. Subsequently, petitioner instituted the present petition for consolidation of title and restoration
of possession. The CFI of Iloilo, finding that respondent was not able to effect the repurchase
Thus, the heirs filed a complaint for Nullity of Sale and/or Redemption against CSCST. The within the period stipulated, rendered judgment declaring title over the land consolidated in
RTC ruled in favor of Sadaya heirs, nullifying the contract of sale. the name of petitioner and ordering respondent to deliver the possession of the same to her.
CA reversed the decision of the trial court.
During the pendency of the appeal, heirs amended their complaint this time citing as a ground
for redemption, the transfer of school site. The CA reversed on the ground of prescription, it ISSUES:
said that the seller’s right to repurchase had expired four years from the effectivity of B.P. Blg. 1. Whether CA erred in holding that the failure to pay the remaining consideration of P200.00
412. The SC affirmed. suspended the running of the period for redemption.
2. Whether or not respondent was able to effect redemption of the property in question within
ISSUE: the period stipulated in the contract.
Were the Sadaya heirs still entitled to exercise its right of redemption over the subject
property? RULING:
We are unable to find any support for the holding of the Appellate Court that the failure to pay
RULING: the balance of the purchase price embodied in the agreement in the amount of P200.00
NO. In a pacto de retro sale, the property subject of the sale may be redeemed only within the resulted in the suspension of the running of the period for redemption.
limits prescribed by the Art. 1606. Under the said provision, the period for redemption shall
not exceed 4 years from the date of the execution of the contract of sale, if there is no The sale was consummated upon the execution of the document and the delivery of the land
agreement as to the period; and if there is such agreement, it must not exceed 10 years. subject matter thereof to the vendee, petitioner herein. It was a perfectly valid agreement, and
the non- payment of the balance of the purchase price could not have the effect of suspending
If the period for exercise is not agreed upon, but the same is suspended or made conditional, as the efficacy of the provisions thereof. Failure to pay part of the consideration of the contract.
in this case, the four-year prescriptive period shall be counted from the happening of the The sale under consideration was perfected from the moment Legayada consented to sell the
condition, PROVIDED that the said exercise shall not exceed 10 years from the execution of land in question and Catangcatang agreed to purchase it for the sum of P1,400.00 and the latter
the contract. In other words, where a condition was imposed on the right of the seller-a-retro to had partially complied with his obligation by paying the sum of P1,200.00 and the former by
repurchase the property, it must be exercised within 4 years from the happening of the delivering possession of the land to the vendee. Moreover, there was nothing whatsoever in
condition, or 10 years from the execution of the contract, whichever comes first. the deed of sale to indicate that the agreement of the parties was to suspend the running of the
period of redemption until full payment of the purchase price. On the contrary, said period was and 1964. Although there was no written notice, it was held that actual knowledge of the sales
agreed to be five (5) years from the date of the execution of the deed. by the co-heirs satisfied the requirement of the law.

The more basic ISSUE is whether or not respondent was able to effect redemption of the In reversing the trial court, the respondent court declared that the notice required by the said
property in question within the period stipulated in the contract. Pursuant to Article 1616 of article was written notice and that actual notice would not suffice as a substitute.
the Civil Code, “the vendor cannot avail himself of the right of repurchase without returning to
the vendee the price of the sale, and in addition: (1) the expenses of the contract, and any other ISSUE:
legitimate payments made by reason of the sale; (2) the necessary and useful expenses made WON actual knowledge satisfied the requirement of Article 1088 of the Civil Code.
on the thing sold.”
RULING:
The records reveal that on May 10, 1957, respondent, without the knowledge of petitioner, Yes. The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners. Under Article
took possession of the subject property. It is claimed that on the same date, respondent’s 1623, when a vendor sells real property, he must notify in writing his co-owners who may
counsel wrote a letter to petitioner, informing her that the redemption money was already in redeem the same within thirty (30) days from notice. The general rule is that written notice of
his (counsel’s) possession This letter never reached petitioner, and was allegedly returned to the sale to all possible redemptioners is indispensable.
said counsel. The reason given by respondent for the non-delivery of the letter is that
petitioner could not be found. This was found by the trial court to be unworthy of credence. The 30 day period which is a condition precedent to the exercise of the right of legal
Apart from this letter, no further effort to effect redemption was made. Respondent could have redemption is counted from the written notice. In the case at bar the Court held that as an
deposited the amount for the redemption with the court, but this he did not do. In the exercise exception to the general rule the co-heirs who lived with the vendors in the same lot are
of the right to repurchase, it is not sufficient that the vendor a retro manifests his desire to deemed to have received actual notice of the sale.
repurchase. This statement of intention must be accompanied with an actual and simultaneous
tender of payment which constitutes the legal exercise of the right to repurchase. While The co-heirs are deemed to have received actual notice of the sale since the co-heirs, including
consignation of the redemption price is not necessary in order to allow the repurchase within Tecla Padua, lived on the same lot, which consisted of only 604 square meters, including the
the time provided by law or by contract, a mere tender being enough, said tender does not portions sold to the petitioners. Eustaquia herself, who had sold her portion, was staying in the
relieve the vendor from the obligation of paying the price. In case of absence of the vendee a same house with her sister Tecla, who later claimed redemption petition.
retro, the right of redemption may still be exercised, as a vendor who decides to redeem a
property sold with pacto de retro stands as the debtor and the vendee as the creditor of the Moreover, the petitioners and the private respondents were close friends and neighbors whose
purchase price. The vendor could and should have exercised his right of redemption against children went to school together. The co-heirs in this case were undeniably informed of the
the vendee by filing a suit against him and making a consignation with the court of the amount sales although no notice in writing was given them. And there is no doubt either that the 30-
due for the redemption. day period began and ended during the 14 years between the sales in question and the filing of
the complaint for redemption in 1977, without the co-heirs exercising their right of
3. Alonzo vs. IAC, 150 SCRA 259; redemption. These are the justifications for this exception. Hence, they may no longer exercise
their right of redemption.
FACTS:
Five brothers and sisters inherited in equal pro indiviso shares a parcel of land registered in 4. Lee Chuy Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, December 4, 1995
‘the name of their deceased parents under OCT No. 10977 of the Registry of Deeds of Tarlac.
On March 15, 1963, one of them, Celestino Padua, transferred his undivided share of the DOCTRINE:
herein petitioners for the by way of absolute sale. “There is actually no prescribed form for an offer to redeem to be properly effected. Hence, it
can either be through a formal tender with consignation, or by filing a complaint in court
One year later, on April 22, 1964, Eustaquia Padua, his sister, sold her own share to the same coupled with consignation of the redemption price within the prescribed period. What is
vendees, in an instrument denominated “Con Pacto de Retro Sale,” for the sum of P 440.00. condition precedent to a valid exercise of the right of legal redemption is either the formal
By virtue of such agreements, the petitioners occupied, after the said sales, an area tender with consignation or the filing of a complaint in court. What is paramount is the
corresponding to two-fifths of the said lot, representing the portions sold to them. availment of the fixed and definite period within which to exercise the right of legal
redemption.”
On February 25, 1976, Mariano Padua, one of the five coheirs, sought to redeem the area sold
to the spouses Alonzo, but his complaint was dismissed when it appeared that he was an FACTS:
American citizen . A valuable piece of land located at Meycauyan, Bulacan, with an area of 24,576 sq. m. and
covered by OCT No. 0-5290 is disputed by Lee Chuy Realty Corporation and Marc Realty and
On May 27, 1977, however, Tecla Padua, another co-heir, filed her own complaint invoking Development Corp. Such land was originally co-owned by Ruben Jacinto(one-sixth),
the same right of redemption claimed by her brother but was dismissed on the ground that the Dominador, Arsenio, Liwayway all surnamed Bascara and Ernesto jacinto(collectively owned
right had lapsed, not having been exercised within thirty days from notice of the sales in 1963 the remaining five-sixths).Ruben Jacinto sold his one-sixth pro-indiviso share to LEE CHUY
REALTY which was registered 30 April 1981. On 5 May 1989 the Bascaras and Ernesto
Jacinto also sold their share to MARC REALTY which was registered on 16 October 1989.
 refused. For their part, the spouses Seguritan countered that the respondent had no right to
On 13 November 1989 LEE CHUY REALTY filed a complaint for legal redemption against repurchase the property since the latter only wanted to redeem the property to sell it for a
MARC REALTY and consigned in court a manager’s check for 614,400. MARC REALTY greater profit.
insisted that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action there being no
allegation of prior valid tender of payment or a prior valid notice of consignation. ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent can validly exercise the right of redemption.
On Dec 26, 1990, the trial court ruled in favour of Lee Chuy Realty which stated that there
was a valid tender of payment and consignation. The CA reversed the decision of the lower
court and ruled that “a prior tender or offer of redemption is a prerequisite or precondition to RULING:
the filing of an action for legal redemption” and that “there must be tender of the redemption It is undisputed, in fact, the parties already stipulated, that the complaint for repurchase was
price within the required period because the policy of the law is not to leave the purchaser’s filed within the reglementary period of five years. The parties also agreed that there was no
title in uncertainty beyond the established 30-day period. consignment of the repurchase price. However, petitioner argues that consignment is
necessary to validly exercise the right of redemption.
MARC REALTY contends that prior tender of payment is a condition precedent to the filing
of an action in court in order to validly exercise the right of legal redemption. LEE CHUY The argument fails.
REALTY however argues that the filing of the action itself is equivalent to a formal offer to
redeem, which is a condition precedent to the valid exercise of the right of legal redemption. In Hulganza v. Court of Appeals, we held that the bona fide tender of the redemption price or
Lee Chuy filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. its equivalent—consignation of said price in court is not essential or necessary where the filing
of the action itself is equivalent to a formal offer to redeem. As explained in the said case,
ISSUE:
WON a formal offer to redeem accompanied with tender of payment a condition precedent to “The formal offer to redeem, accompanied by a bona fide tender of the redemption price,
the filing of an action for the valid exercise of the right of legal redemption; is the filing of the within the period of redemption prescribed by law, is only essential to preserve the right of
action with consignation equivalent to a formal offer to redeem. redemption for future enforcement beyond such period of redemption and within the period
prescribed for the action by the statute of limitations. Where, as in the instant case, the right to
RULING: redeem is exercised thru the filing of judicial action within the period of redemption
The Court of Appeals erroneously concluded that a prior tender or offer of redemption is a prescribed by the law, the formal offer to redeem, accompanied by a bona fide tender of the
prerequisite or precondition to the filing of the action for legal redemption. To avail of the redemption price, might be proper, but is not essential. The filing of the action itself, within
right of redemption what is essential is to make an offer to redeem within the prescribed the period of redemption, is equivalent to a formal offer to redeem.
period. There is no prescribed form for an offer to redeem to be properly effected. It can either
be the formal tender with consignation or the filing of a complaint in court. What is paramount 6. Solid Homes, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 117501, July 8, 1997
is the availment of the fixed and definite period within which to exercise the right of legal
redemption. 7. Lao Vs. CA, 275 SCRA 237

The filing of the action itself is equivalent to a formal offer to redeem. What constitutes a
condition precedent is either a formal offer to redeem or the filing of an action in court
together with the consignation of the redemption price within the reglementary period. 0The
decision of respondent Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan is REINSTATED.

5. Anecita Gregorio v. Crisologo Vda. De Culig, G.R. No. 180559; January 20, 2016.

FACTS:
Respondent Maria Crisologo V da. De Culig (respondent) is the widow of Alfredo Culig, Sr.
(Alfredo). During his lifetime, Alfredo was granted a homestead patent under the Public Land
Act (C.A. 141) over a 54,730-square meter parcel of land (the property) in Nuangan,
Kidapawan, North Cotabato.1 Alfredo died sometime in 1971, and on October 9, 1974, his
heirs, including respondent, executed an extra-judicial settlement of estate with simultaneous
sale of the property in favor of spouses Andres Seguritan and Anecita Gregorio (petitioner).

On September 26, 1979, respondent filed a complaint demanding the repurchase of the
property under the provisions of the Public Land Act. She alleged that she first approached the
spouses personally and offered to pay back the purchase price of ₱25,000.00 but the latter