OLIVIA V.

LAMADRID

FACTS: Plaintiff was the owner of a parcel of land which was covered by Homestead Patent No.
18863. In 1958, he mortgaged the property. He subsequently defaulted in payment resulting in the
foreclosure of his property which was later sold to Lamadrid. The certificate of sale issued by the
sheriff stated that the property could be redeemed within two years. Prior to May 1963, plaintiff
offered to repurchase the property but his offer was turned down. After appropriate proceedings,
the lower court rendered judgment in favor of lamadrid.

ISSUE: won the period of redemption is governed by Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141,
as asserted by the plaintiff, or by Section 5 of Republic Act No. 720, as amended, as contended by
the defendants.

HELD:
ThelegislativehistoryofthebillswhichlaterbecamesaidRepublicActNo.2670,amendingRepub
lic,
ActNo.720,showsthattheoriginalproposalwastogivehomesteadersorfreepatentholdersape
riodoften(10)
yearswithinwhichtoredeemtheirpropertyforeclosedbyruralbanksthatthisproposalwasevent
uallyfoundto
beunwise,becauseitseffectwouldhavebeentodissuaderuralbanksfromgrantingloanstohom
esteadersor
freepatentholderswhichweresoughttobeliberalizedsaidperiodofredemptionbeingtoolo
ng,fromthe viewpoint of said banks and that, consequently, the proposal was given up,
with the specific intent and
understandingthathomesteadersorholdersoffreepatentwouldretaintherighttoredeemwithinfi
ve(5)years
fromtheconveyanceoftheirproperties,asprovidedinthegenerallaw,thatistosaythePublicLa
ndAct,or CommonwealthActNo.141.

Itis,therefore,ourconsideredviewthatplaintiffhereinhastherighttorepurchasethepropertyinq
uestionwithin
five(5)yearsfromthedateoftheconveyanceorforeclosuresale,oruptoFebruary4,1966,andt
hathaving
exercisedsuchrightandtenderedpaymentlongbeforethedatelastmentioned,defendantsherein
areboundto reconveysaidpropertytohim.

~~oOo~~