GR L 33671; (July, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33671 July 28, 1972
FELIX DE JESUS, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DIVISION; and SPOUSES FERNANDO CALUAG, and LUCENA HERNANDEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents, the purchasers of an agricultural land, filed an ejectment case against petitioner, the agricultural lessee. Petitioner admitted the sale but countered that the former owners failed to properly notify him of their intention to sell, depriving him of his right of pre-emption under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 3844 . He thus exercised his right of redemption under Section 12 of the same law, depositing the redemption price of P6,000.00 with the agrarian court within the two-year statutory period. The agrarian court ordered his ejectment and denied his redemption claim.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, but on a different ground. It found that petitioner’s deposit constituted a valid tender. However, it ruled that petitioner forfeited his right when, after the agrarian court’s adverse judgment but before perfecting his appeal, he withdrew the deposited redemption money via an ex-parte motion. The appellate court held this withdrawal indicated a change of mind and a decision not to repurchase.
ISSUE
Did the petitioner’s withdrawal of the redemption money deposited in court constitute a forfeiture of his right of redemption?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the redemption right and the purpose of consignation. The right of redemption granted by agrarian law is optional, not compulsory. A valid tender or consignation of the price within the statutory period is essential to exercise the right. Petitioner’s timely deposit constituted such a valid exercise, demonstrating his readiness and ability to pay.
The subsequent withdrawal of the consigned sum during the pendency of litigation, while awaiting judicial confirmation of his right, does not extinguish that right. Following the precedent in Butte vs. Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc., such withdrawal merely means no actual redemption is completed until the price is finally paid to the purchaser. The purchaser thus remains the owner entitled to the fruits until that final payment. The withdrawal did not signify an abandonment but was a permissible act given the uncertain outcome of the case. Petitioner was not obligated to keep his funds immobilized in court while appealing the denial of his legal right. Therefore, his right of redemption remained intact.