Civil Law,  Legally Yours

De la Cruz v. Resureccion

De la Cruz v. Resureccion

G.R. No. L-9304;April 28, 1956


Doroteo de la Cruz and his wife Julia Robles sold on January 28, 1949, to defendants under pacto de retro a parcel of coconut land. It was expressly agreed that the land may be redeemed within a period of three years from the date of the sale.

On September 2, 1951, Doroteo de la Cruz went to the house of defendant Rafael L. Resurreccion to tell him that he wanted to redeem the land and, upon being asked if he had the money with him, De la Cruz answered in the negative.

Thereupon, Resurreccion tried to dissuade him from redeeming the land offering him a premium of P400, to which De la Cruz replied that he would consult his wife.

Thereafter, De la Cruz left promising to return later with his wife, but he never returned, and on October 17, 1951, he deposited with the clerk of court the sum of P1,350 with the request that he notify defendants of then deposit.

Then, on November 5, 1951, he and his wife instituted the present action. It further appears that sometimes after the execution of the deed of sale the spouses De la Cruz sold their rights over the land to one Narciso Aligada but of this transfer no evidence was given to defendants.

Plaintiffs contend that the plaintiffs did not make the consignations strictly in accordance with the law because no notice of intention was given to them.


Whether or not the tender of payment followed with a deposit of repurchase price in the court by the vendor a retro made within the period stipulated is sufficient to preserve the right to repurchase the property


YES. It should be noted that Doroteo de la Cruz offered to redeem the land from defendants on September 2, 1951, much prior to the expiration of the period of redemption.

When defendants tried to dissuade him from redeeming the land upon payment of a premium of P400, which De la Cruz interpreted as a refusal to allow the redemption, plaintiffs lost no time in depositing the repurchase money and instituted the present action to enforce their right.

These steps are more than necessary in contemplation of law to preserve their right of redemption. Whether therefore all the requirements of the law to make a valid consignation were complied with or not, it would appear to be of no consequence, the important thing is that the tender of payment is made within the period stipulated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: