142 SCRA 82

FACTS:

The complaint alleged, among others, that Bernardo B. Legaspi is the registered owner of the aforementioned two parcels of land which he sold to his son-in-law, Leonardo B. Salcedo, on October 15, 1965 for the sum of P25,000.00 with the right to repurchase the same within five years from the ex-ecution of the deed of sale; that before the expiry date of the repurchase period which was on October 15, 1970, Legaspi offered and tendered to Salcedo the sum of P25,000.00 for the repurchase of the two parcels of land; that the tender of payment was refused by Salcedo without justifiable or legal cause; that Salcedo refused to convey the properties to Legaspi as requested by the latter; that on October 15, 1970, Legaspi deposited in the Office of the Clerk of Court of First Instance of Cavite City the amount of P25,125.00 as evidenced by Official Receipt No. 2698797-k marked as Exhibit “B”; that despite earnest efforts towards a compromise after consignation of the repurchase money had been made, Salcedo refused to reconvey the properties in question.

In his answer with compulsory counterclaim, Salcedo alleged, among others, that he denies that Legaspi ever offered and tendered to him the sum of P25,000.00 or requested the execution of the corresponding deed of reconveyance; that what actually transpired on October 15, 1970 was that Legaspi asked for an extension of one year within which to repurchase the two parcels of land bringing with him a document entitled “Extension Period to Repurchase” marked as Exhibit “1” which Salcedo declined to sign; and that Salcedo also denies that earnest efforts towards a compromise were pursued by Legaspi for the latter merely proposed for an extension of one year of the right to repurchase. By way of special defense, Salcedo claimed that Legaspi was no longer entitled to repurchase the properties in question for failure to exercise his right within the stipulated period in accordance with Article 1250 of the Civil Code under which Salcedo maintained he was entitled to the payment of P42,250.00 instead of only P25,000.00.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the right of repurchase was seasonably exercised.

RULING:

YES. The records, therefore, show that the right of repurchase was seasonably exercised. The records clearly manifest that the petitioner was able to make a valid tender of payment on the 14th of October 1970 by offering personally the amount of P25,000.00 to the private respondent who refused to accept it claiming that the money was devalued. Thereafter, the petitioner informed the private respondent that he would be depositing the same amount with the proper court, (tsn., pp. 6 & 9, February 8, 1972 hearing). The trial court correctly ruled that there was proper exercise of the right to repurchase within the five-year period not for the reason that the deposit of the repurchase money amounted to a tender of payment but for what the evidence submitted before it proved.

*Case digest by Benjie L. Sumalpong, JD – 4, Andres Bonifacio College, SY 2019 – 2020