University of the Philippines College of Law

NSM, D2021

Topic Period to Redeem

Case No. 16 SCRA 775
Case Name Conejero v. CA
Ponente Reyes, JBL

RELEVANT FACTS
 P Paz Torres and Enrique Torres were co-owners pro indiviso of a lot and building in Cebu City
o both had inherited from their deceased parents
 September 15, 1949, Enrique Torres sold his half interest to the Raffiñan spouses for P13,000, with right
to repurchase within one year.
 April 3, 1951 (six months after the expiration of the right to repurchase), said Enrique executed a deed
of absolute sale of the same half interest in the property in favor of the Raffiñans for P28,000.
 August 19, 1952, Enrique Torres showed his brother-in-law, Enrique Conejero, a copy of the deed of
absolute sale
o Conejero forthwith went to the buyers, offering to redeem his brother-in-law’s share
 No amicable settlement having been reached, Conejeros filed, on October 4, 1952, a complaint in the
Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking to be declared entitled to redeem the half interest of Enrique
Torres
 Raffinan’s answer:
o P lost their right of redemption because they failed to exercise it within the statutory period.

 Conjereo’s appeal is based on:
o (a) that no written notice of the sale to the Raffinans having been given by Enrique Torres to his
sister and co-owner, Paz T. de Conejero, the latter’s right to exercise legal redemption has not
expired, in fact, it has not even started to run; and
o (b) that in legal redemption no tender of the redemption price is required, mere demand to
allow redemption being sufficient to preserve the redemptioner’s right.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
W/N Conejero’s were able to
make a valid tender of the
price within the period for
redemption.
Ratio
NO, they merely offered a check for 10,000 which was not even legal tender
and which the Raffinans rejected in lieu of the price of 28,000 in the deed of
sale.
 BUYERS RAFFINANS WERE NOT OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT CONEJERO’S
PROMISE TO PAY THE BALANCE BY MEANS OF A LOAN TO BE
OBTAINED IN FUTURE FROM A BANK:
o There is no cogent reason for requiring the vendee to accept
payment by installments from a redemptioner, as it would
ultimately result in an indefinite extension of the 30-day
redemption period, when the purpose of the law in fixing a
short and definite term is clearly to avoid prolonged and anti-
economic uncertainty as to ownership of the thing sold
 An action filed within the redemption period should be accompanied
 University of the Philippines College of Law
NSM, D2021

by consignation to take the place of a personal tender.

o While consignation is not always necessary, a valid tender is
indispensable, for the reasons already stated. Of course,
consignation of the price would remove all controversy as to
the redemptioner’s ability to pay at the proper time.
 The right of a redemptioner to pay a reasonable price under Article
1620 does not excuse him from the duty to make proper tender.
o At any rate, the petitioners, in making their offer to redeem,
never contested the reasonableness of the price recited in the
deed of sale. In fact, they even offered more, and were willing
to pay as much as P34,000.
 RATIONALE: Only by such means can the buyer become certain that
the offer to redeem is one made seriously and in good faith. A
different rule would leave the buyer open to harassment by
speculators or crackpots, as well as to unnecessary prolongation of
the redemption period, contrary to the policy of the law.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court appealed from is reversed and set aside, and the case is remanded to
said court, which is hereby directed to continue with the hearing of the same, for the purpose of determining
the value of the useful improvements introduced by defendants on the land in question and, thereafter, render
judgment in accordance with law. Without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

NOTES