Rivero v. Rivero
In 1943, Dioniso Moreno sold half of a parcel of land to Padua and the other half to Texon and it was stipulated in both contracts that Moreno (vendor a retro) has right to repurchase the property within two years from the date of sale. Eight months after, Moreno sold his rights in the whole land to Rivero.
After the lapse of two years, Rivero filed an action against Texon and Padua contending that the condition of the Philippines from 1943 to 1945 suspended the running of the period for redemption because the “conditions then prevailing were so chaotic, unsettled and dangerous that it was, with certain exceptions, inherently impossible to comply with one’s obligations.”
Whether or not the period of redemption was suspended
No, there is only suspension or extension of the period when there is legal or physical impossibility for the interested party to enforce or exercise in time his right of action. Ad imposibilia nemo tenetur.
Even if assuming that defendant is a guerrillero and nowhere to be found, there’s still no impossibility to exercise his rights because as vendor de retro he is the debtor.
Hence, his remedy should have been to file a suit against him and make a consignation with the court of the amount due for the redemption. This filing and consignation must be done within the stipulated period to repurchase.