G.R. No. L-9304; April 28, 1956
DOROTEO DE LA CRUZ, JULIA ROBLES AND NARCISO ALIGADA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. RAFAEL L. RESURRECCION and ALMEDA, FRANCISCO AND CO., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiffs Doroteo de la Cruz and Julia Robles sold a parcel of coconut land to defendants under a pacto de retro sale on January 28, 1949, with a redemption period of three years. On September 2, 1951, within the redemption period, Doroteo de la Cruz went to defendant Rafael L. Resurreccion’s house to express his intention to redeem the land. When asked if he had the money, De la Cruz answered in the negative. Resurreccion then tried to dissuade him by offering a premium of P400 if he would not redeem. De la Cruz replied he would consult his wife, left, and never returned. On October 17, 1951, De la Cruz deposited the redemption price of P1,350 with the clerk of court, requesting notification to defendants. On November 5, 1951, plaintiffs instituted an action to recover the land and compel defendants to execute a deed of resale. It also appeared that after the pacto de retro sale, the spouses sold their rights over the land to Narciso Aligada, but defendants were not informed of this transfer.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiffs have preserved their right to redeem the land under the pacto de retro sale, despite not having made a valid consignation of the redemption price in strict compliance with legal requirements, given that they made a tender of payment within the stipulated period and subsequently filed an action to enforce redemption.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, recognizing plaintiffs’ right to redeem. The Court held that a bona fide offer or tender of the redemption price within the stipulated period is sufficient to preserve the right of redemption, even without a valid judicial consignation, if the offer is refused. The plaintiffs’ tender of payment on September 2, 1951, within the redemption period, followed by the deposit of the money with the court and the filing of the action to enforce redemption, were more than sufficient steps to preserve their right. The Court cited jurisprudence (Rosales vs. Reyes and Ordaveza and Canuto vs. Mariano) establishing that a bona fide offer of the price, where refused, preserves the vendor’s right of action, and that filing an action tolls the period for redemption. The defense that plaintiffs lost their right because they sold the land to Aligada was also rejected, as that sale was made subject to the pacto de retro and was a matter between plaintiffs and Aligada, not the defendants.