1.Torrijos vs.

Crisologo

FACTS:

The land subject of the registration proceedings was sold to petitioner Antonio Torrijos by the Crisologos
for the sum of P3,050.00 on April 26, 1940, the sale including the land and a house standing thereon.
The vendors reserved the right to repurchase the land and the house within three years from the date of
the sale. The vendee was expressly authorized to make improvements on the house and to construct a
fence on the land. The deed of sale a retro was registered in accordance with Act No. 3344. On July 27,
1948 the Crisologos and their mother filed an action against Torrijos to compel the latter to re-sell the
property to the plaintiffs. This was docketed as Civil Case No. 170 of the Court of First Instance of Abra.
The court of first instance in its judgment recognized the right of the Crisologos to repurchase the
property within a fixed period of sixty days for the total sum of P25,913.95. On appeal to the Court of
Appeals, the latter modified the decision, ordering the reduction of the price of the property by P6,000.
Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court by petitions for certiorari. That filed by Torrijos was
dismissed on February 7, 1956 and that filed by the Crisologos on March 15, 1956.

ISSUE:

Is the petitioner has the right to repurchase the subject land?

RULING:

In a sale with right of repurchase. in order to effect a redemption of the property sold, the vendor
should return or tender to the vendee the full amount of the redemption price.

Where, in the judgment entered in a previous case between the same parties the vendor was allowed to
repurchase the property pledged or mortgaged for a certain sum within a given period, the rights of the
parties as creditor and debtors were thereby definitely settled, and the only remedy of the debtor in
case of refusal of creditor to accept the offer of payment is to consign such offered payment (Art. 1256
Civil Code); the debtor may not again consider and offer of payment of the debt and the denial of such
offer a ground for claiming again another extension of the period of redemption.

The only remedy to prevent such an absurd situation is to declare, as we now hold, that as Torrijos
refused to permit the redemption, the Crisologos should have deposited or consigned the full amount of
the price with the Court, as provided in Article 1256 of the Civil Code.

WHEREFORE, the amended decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby set aside and its original decision
affirmed. With costs against respondents So ordered.
2. [G.R. No. 6591. October 24, 1911.]

JUAN RETES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAMASO SUELTO, Defendant-Appellant.

FACTS:

On the 29th of January, 1909, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant for the purpose of
recovering the possession of five parcels of land, which were particularly described in paragraph two of
the complaint, together with damages for the unlawful detention of the same.

That upon the 16th of March, 1904, the plaintiff received of the defendant as a loan the sum of P408, to
guarantee the payment of which sum he mortgaged the 5 parcles of land.

That the debt and the conditions of the mortgage appear in a simple document, in which it also appears
that the defendant should gather all of the fruits of said parcels of land as long as the plaintiff failed to
satisfy the said debt, provided that the payment should not be made before the expiration of one year
nor after four years, with the condition that the plaintiff and defendant should pay in equal parts the
taxes due upon the said land until the entire debt should be paid."

The record also shows that the defendant remained in possession of said land described in the
complaint and continued to gather the crops, from the date on which the plaintiff deposited the amount
due on the indebtedness between himself and the defendant, up to the time the action was
commenced in the lower court.

The lower court found that the value of the crops gathered by the defendant after the plaintiff had
offered to return the money, amounted to P500. The money which the plaintiff had deposited by the
direction of the justice of the peace in the hands of Felipe Remollo, was still in e possession of the said
Remollo at the time of the trial.

The lower court rendered a judgment against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of
P500, this being the value of the crops harvested by the defendant from the lands in question after the
plaintiff had offered to repurchase the same, together with the return of the possession of the land.

ISSUE:

Is the plaintiff entitled to recover the property?

RULING:

When a debtor, under a contract such as is described in the opinion, has done all that is required for the
purpose of securing the return of the possession of land by the payment of the indebtedness, or by a
legal deposit of the amount of said indebtedness, he is entitled to return of the land, together with the
damages for the use and occupation of the same from the date of said payment or of such legal deposit.

It appears that the said P408 was still in the hands of Felipe Remollo at the time of the trial. The
defendant has a right to receive from Felipe Remollo the said P408.
We find nothing in the record that justifies a modification of the conclusions of the lower court.
Therefore the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed with costs.