CASE DIGEST: Legaspi v. Court of Appeals

 

BERNARDO B. LEGASPI, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LEONARDO B. SALCEDO

G.R. No. L-45510               |              May 27, 1986

FACTS:

On February 8, 1971, petitioner filed a complaint for reconveyance to enforce his right to repurchase 2 parcels of land which he sold to private respondent pursuant to a pacto de retro sale.

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 execution 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; 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, 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” 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 petitioner validly exercised his right to repurchase the properties within the five-year period as stipulated in the sale with pacto de retro entered into between the petitioner as vendor a retro and private respondent as vendee a retro

RULING:

Tender of payment is the manifestation made by the debtor to the creditor of his desire to comply with his obligation, with the offer of immediate performance. Generally, it is an act preparatory to consignation as an attempt to make a private settlement before proceeding to the solemnities of consignation. Consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court or judicial authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses to accept payment and it generally requires a prior tender of payment. In instances where no debt is due and owing, consignation is not proper. “Consignation is not required to preserve the right of repurchase as a mere tender of payment is enough if made on time as a basis for an action to compel the vendee a retro to resell the property.”

Since the case at bar involves the exercise of the right to repurchase, a showing that petitioner made a valid tender of payment is sufficient. It is enough that a sincere or genuine tender of payment and not a mock or deceptive one was made. The fact that he deposited the amount of the repurchase money with the Clerk of Court was simply an additional security for the petitioner. It was not an essential act that had to be performed after tender of payment was refused by the private respondent although it may serve to indicate the veracity of the desire to comply with the obligation.

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.