G.R. No. L-14611; November 29, 1960
EVANGELINO LASERNA, petitioner-appellee, vs. MARIA JAVIER and JOSE MA. CRUZ, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

On September 13, 1949, spouses Jose Ma. Cruz and Maria Javier Cruz (appellants) sold a parcel of land in Mandaluyong, Rizal, to Evangelino Laserna (appellee) under a pacto de retro sale for P13,000.00, with a one-year repurchase period. The appellants failed to repurchase the property. On November 29, 1950, the appellee filed a petition for consolidation of title, which the Court of First Instance of Rizal granted on December 7, 1950. The appellants appealed this order (CA- G.R. No. 7885 -R), and the Court of Appeals set it aside on April 22, 1955, due to lack of proper notice, without prejudice to the appellee filing a new petition.
Meanwhile, the appellant spouses filed an action to annul the deed, claiming it was a mortgage, not a sale with pacto de retro. The Court of First Instance upheld the instrument as a valid pacto de retro sale, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals on April 22, 1955 (CA- G.R. No. 9882 -R).
On July 15, 1955, the appellee filed the present petition for consolidation of title and for issuance of a new title in the name of his vendee, Jose M. League. The appellants opposed, arguing that under Article 1606 of the new Civil Code, they could still repurchase within thirty (30) days from the finality of the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA- G.R. No. 9882 -R, which they claimed became final only on July 20, 1955. The lower court granted the petition on August 6, 1955, ruling Article 1606 inapplicable. The appellants’ motion for reconsideration was denied on September 19, 1955, with the court noting that even if Article 1606 applied, the thirty-day period had long elapsed without the appellants having tendered or deposited the redemption money.

ISSUE

Whether or not, under the circumstances, the appellants (vendors a retro) may still repurchase the properties subject of the pacto de retro sale.

RULING

No, the appellants may no longer repurchase the properties. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court.
The Court held that Article 1606 of the new Civil Code, which grants the vendor a retro the right to repurchase within thirty days from the time a final judgment is rendered declaring the contract to be a true sale with right to repurchase, was applicable. Conformably, the appellants could have repurchased the properties within thirty days after the finality of the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA- G.R. No. 9882 -R (which upheld the contract as a pacto de retro sale).
However, the Court found no showing that the appellants exercised this right within the applicable thirty-day period. As noted by the lower court, even as late as September 19, 1955, the appellants had failed to tender payment or make a judicial deposit of the redemption money. The rule requires that the vendor a retro must complete the repurchase before the expiration of the period by making an actual and simultaneous tender of payment. Mere manifestations of a desire to repurchase are insufficient. Tender is unnecessary only if the vendee has flatly refused to permit repurchase, which was not the case here. Since the appellants failed to make a bona fide offer or tender of payment within the redemption period, they lost their right of redemption.