G.R. No. L-8162 | October 10, 1913
FAUSTO ROSALES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. VICENTE REYES and JUAN ORDOVEZA, defendants-appellees.

DOCTRINE:
1. The prayer for relief in a complaint is not part of the statement of the cause of action; the

facts alleged determine the relief warranted.
2. In a sale with pacto de retro, the redemption period is generally four years from the date of the contract if no express period is agreed upon. However, if the contract suspends the right to redeem for a specified time, the four-year period is counted from the expiration of that suspension, provided the total duration does not exceed ten years.
3. A minor who ratifies a contract upon reaching majority can no longer annul it.
4. A valid redemption requires actual payment or valid tender of the repurchase price, not merely an offer.

FACTS:
– On July 29, 1902, Rivera sold a parcel of land to Reyes and Ordoveza under a pacto de retro (sale with right to repurchase) for ₱800. The contract stipulated that repurchase could not be made until after three years from the date of sale. Rivera stated he was of age in the document.
– On May 29, 1903, Rivera sold his right to repurchase to Rosales (plaintiff-appellant) for ₱1,075. In this document, Rivera stated he was 23 years old.
– In January 1908, Rosales tendered ₱800 to Reyes and Ordoveza, demanding the land in accordance with the 1902 contract. They refused.
– Rosales filed a complaint seeking: (1) annulment of the 1902 contract on the ground that Rivera was a minor at the time; and (2) alternatively, specific performance requiring defendants to deliver the land upon payment of ₱800.
– Defendants demurred, arguing the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The trial court sustained the demurrer. Rosales appealed.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the complaint is defective for inconsistency in the prayer for relief.
2. Whether Rivera’s minority invalidates the 1902 contract.
3. Whether the right to repurchase had expired when Rosales attempted to exercise it in 1908.
4. Whether a mere tender of the repurchase price is sufficient for redemption.

RULING:
1. On the inconsistency in the prayer for relief:
– The Supreme Court held that the prayer for relief is not part of the cause of action. Inconsistency in the prayer does not render the complaint defective. The facts alleged determine the relief available.

2. On Rivera’s minority:
– The Court ruled that even if Rivera was a minor in 1902, he ratified the contract upon reaching majority by selling his right to repurchase to Rosales in 1903, wherein he declared he was 23 years old. Under Article 1311 of the Civil Code, implied confirmation occurs when a person, aware of the cause for nullity and after such cause ceases, performs an act implying waiver of the right to annul. Thus, the contract could no longer be annulled.

3. On the expiration of the right to repurchase:
– The Court interpreted Article 1508 of the Civil Code, which provides that the right to repurchase lasts four years from the contract date absent an express agreement, but shall not exceed ten years if agreed upon.
– Here, the contract suspended the right to redeem for three years. The Court held that the four-year period should be counted from the expiration of the suspension (i.e., from July 29, 1905), not from the contract date. Thus, the right would expire on July 29, 1909. Rosales’ tender in January 1908 was within this period.
– The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the right expired in 1906 (four years from 1902), as such an interpretation would render the suspension clause meaningless and could lead to absurd results (e.g., if redemption were suspended for five years, the right would expire before it could be exercised).

4. On the sufficiency of tender:
– The Court held that a valid redemption requires actual payment or a valid tender (consignation) of the repurchase price, as required by Article 1518 of the Civil Code. A mere offer is insufficient. Since the complaint only alleged an “offer” or “tender” without showing that Rosales made a valid consignation after refusal, it failed to state a cause of action for specific performance.
– However, the Court noted that Rosales could amend his complaint to allege a valid consignation.

DISPOSITION:
The judgment sustaining the demurrer was AFFIRMED, but without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to amend the complaint within a reasonable time. Costs were taxed against the appellant.

DISSENTING OPINIONS:
– Justice Torres argued that the right to repurchase expired four years from the contract date (1906) since there was no express agreement extending the period. He also emphasized that redemption requires actual repayment, not just an offer.
– Justice Moreland agreed with Torres, stating that the suspension clause did not extend the redemption period beyond four years from the contract date, and the complaint showed on its face that the action was filed beyond that period.

SIGNIFICANCE:
This case clarified the computation of the redemption period in pacto de retro sales when the right is suspended, establishing that the four-year period runs from the expiration of the suspension. It also emphasized the requirements for valid redemption and the effect of ratification by a minor upon reaching majority.