G.R. No. L-5853
FELIX ANGAO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NICOLAS CLAVANO, defendant-appellee.
October 4, 1910

FACTS: In 1899, Felix Angao (plaintiff) entered into a contract, locally known as a “pledge,” with Ambrosio Bugahud. Angao granted Bugahud the use of his coconut land in exchange for a P43 loan. The condition was that Angao would repay the loan after his marriage, and Bugahud would return the land.

Angao married on September 8, 1903. In October 1906, after his marriage, Angao offered to repay Bugahud to redeem his land. Bugahud informed him that he had “deeded his rights” in the land to Nicolas Clavano (defendant). Angao, along with Bugahud, then demanded restitution from Clavano and offered to pay the P43, but Clavano refused to accept the money and return the land.

Angao filed a complaint in March 1909, praying for Clavano to accept the P43 and return the land. Clavano denied the allegations. During trial, a written agreement (Exhibit A) between Angao and Clavano was presented, which was found to be a sale with pacto de retro, not a simple pledge. This contract stipulated that if Angao did not repurchase the land within one year from the date of his marriage, Clavano would become the true owner, and Angao would be entitled to an additional P20.

The trial court found that Angao married on September 8, 1903, and that his offer to repurchase the land in August 1906 occurred more than one year after his marriage. Consequently, the trial court absolved Clavano. Angao appealed, but without requesting a new trial, limiting the Supreme Court’s review to questions of law, accepting the factual findings of the trial court.

ISSUE: Did Felix Angao validly and timely exercise his right to repurchase the land under the pacto de retro agreement?

RULING: No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that Felix Angao lost his right to repurchase the land.

The Court accepted the trial court’s finding that the contract between Angao and Clavano was a sale with pacto de retro, with the condition that Angao could repurchase the land within one year after his marriage. Angao married on September 8, 1903. Therefore, the one-year period for repurchase expired on September 8, 1904.

Angao’s offer to repurchase, made in August 1906, was clearly outside the stipulated one-year period following his marriage. The Court also emphasized that under Article 1518 of the Civil Code, a vendor exercising the right of redemption must not only intimate or state the desire to repurchase but must also immediately offer to repay the price. If the vendee refuses, the payment must be deposited with the proper authority or a commissioned notary. As Angao failed to comply with these conditions within the stipulated period, Article 1509 of the Civil Code applied, which states that if the vendor does not comply with the requirements of Article 1518, the vendee shall irrevocably acquire ownership of the thing sold.

Since Angao failed to repurchase the property within the agreed-upon period and did not properly tender or deposit the repurchase price, Clavano’s ownership of the land became perfected by operation of law.