G.R. No. L-23312, L-23313, L-23314. September 28, 1968.
JULIO GATLABAYAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. EMILIANO C. RAMIREZ, defendant-appellant. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

Three separate complaints for legal redemption were filed by different members of the Gatlabayan family (Julio, Bonifacio, and Maximo) against Emiliano C. Ramirez. The plaintiffs had acquired their respective lots through homestead patents. On January 17, 1958, they executed three separate deeds of absolute sale in favor of Ramirez covering these homestead lots. The sales were registered, and Transfer Certificates of Title were issued in Ramirez’s name. The plaintiffs filed their complaints for redemption under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 within five years from January 17, 1958. Ramirez defended by arguing that the redemption period should be counted from an earlier “Agreement to Sell” dated April 9, 1957, that the redemption price should account for currency inflation under Article 1250 of the Civil Code, and that the lower court failed to fix a specific period for the plaintiffs to effect the redemption.

ISSUE

1. Whether the five-year redemption period under Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 should be computed from the date of the “Agreement to Sell” (April 9, 1957) or from the date of the notarized “Deed of Absolute Sale” (January 17, 1958).
2. Whether Article 1250 of the Civil Code on extraordinary inflation applies to the redemption price.
3. Whether the court should fix a specific period within which the plaintiffs must exercise their right of redemption.

RULING

1. The five-year redemption period is computed from January 17, 1958, the date of the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale. The earlier “Agreement to Sell” was a mere promise to sell, not a conveyance, as it expressly acknowledged a legal prohibition against sale before the expiration of five years from the patent’s issuance and stipulated that full payment, possession, and responsibility for taxes would only transfer upon the execution of the absolute deed of sale after that date.
2. Article 1250 of the Civil Code does not apply. The issue was not raised in the answer; there was no evidence of extraordinary inflation between 1958 and 1963; the delay in redemption was attributable to Ramirez’s refusal; both parties assumed the risk of currency fluctuation; and the contracts did not stipulate payment in a specific currency as required by the article.
3. The Supreme Court modified the lower court’s decision by fixing a period of sixty (60) days from notice of the entry of its decision for the plaintiffs to exercise their right of redemption, to prevent the indefinite extension of the statutory period and in the interest of justice. In all other respects, the lower court’s decision was affirmed.