G.R. No. L-11346; March 21, 1918
ESPIRIDIONA CANUTO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN MARIANO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On December 4, 1913, plaintiff Espiridiona Canuto sold a parcel of land to defendant Juan Mariano for P360, reserving in the deed a right to repurchase the property for the same price within one year. Before the expiration of the redemption period on December 4, 1914, the plaintiff, on December 2, 1914, orally requested an extension. The defendant agreed to extend the redemption period until the end of December 1914, on condition that the plaintiff would secure the money and repurchase within that month. Relying on this oral agreement, the plaintiff secured the funds and arranged to meet the defendant at an attorney’s office on an agreed date to complete the repurchase. The defendant failed to appear at the appointed time and place and subsequently refused to accept the tender of the repurchase price, asserting that the original redemption period had expired and the plaintiff’s right was extinguished. The plaintiff filed an action to compel the execution of the deed of repurchase.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to repurchase the property based on the subsequent oral agreement extending the redemption period, despite the expiration of the period stipulated in the written contract.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance ordering the defendant to execute the deed of repurchase upon payment of P360. The Court held:
1. The subsequent oral agreement extending the redemption period is valid and enforceable. The parol evidence rule does not prohibit proving a subsequent agreement that modifies a written contract. The oral extension was a new, independent contract that did not contradict the original deed but merely altered its terms by mutual consent.
2. The plaintiff’s bona fide tender of the repurchase price within the extended period was sufficient to preserve her right to redeem. Judicial deposit of the price is not required when a valid tender is refused by the vendor a retro. The plaintiff’s failure to repurchase on the original date was due to the defendant’s own conduct in reneging on the extension agreement.
3. The defendant, having agreed to the extension, cannot repudiate his promise after the plaintiff had relied upon it and prepared to perform her obligation within the extended period. Equity prevents him from taking advantage of his own refusal to comply with the subsequent agreement.

The judgment was affirmed with costs against the appellant.