Immaculata v.

Navarro, 160 SCRA 211

Doctrine: The right to redeem is a right, not an obligation, therefore, there is no consignation required
to preserve the right to redeem.

Facts:

Lauro Immaculata filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision of the Supreme Court dated
November 26, 1986, asking the Court to rule on the matter of legal redemption of a parcel of land
previously obtained by Immaculata thru a free patent. While the sale was originally executed sometime
in December 1969, it was only on February 3, 1974 when a deed of conveyance was formally executed,
since offer to redeem was made on March 24, 1975, this was clearly within the 5-year period of legal
redemption allowed by the Public Land Act. It is argued that the right to redeem was not sincere
because there was no consignation of the amount in the court.

Issue/s: Whether consignation is required when an offer to redeem is made within the legal redemption
period

Ruling:

The allegation that the offer to redeem was not sincere, because there was no consignation of the
amount in Court is devoid of merit. The right to redeem is a right, not an obligation, therefore, there is
no consignation required to preserve the right to redeem. The case is remanded to the court a quo for it
to accept payment or consignation by Immaculata of whatever he received from respondent at the time
the transaction was made.