PAZ TORRES DE CONEJERO AND ENRIQUE CONEJERO, PETITIONERS, v.

COURT OF APPEALS, VISITACION A. DE RAFFIAN AND ENRIQUE TORRES,

RESPONDENTS.
DOCTRINE:

But the Supreme Court disputes this, no form was required by 1623 on how written
notice was to be served. It was held to be sufficient and more than enough when ET went
to EC and provided him with a copy of the deed of Absolute sale. That was already notice
and hence from that day , Aug 19, the 30-day redemption period commences.

But the Supreme Court disputes this, no form was required by 1623 on how written
notice was to be served. It was held to be sufficient and more than enough when ET went
to EC and provided him with a copy of the deed of Absolute sale. That was already notice
and hence from that day , Aug 19, the 30-day redemption period commences.
FACTS:

Paz Torres de Conejero (Paz) and Enrique Torres (ET) are siblings. They inherited a lot
and building in Cebu from their parents which made Paz and ET co-owners of the said
property.

ET sold his share to Raffinan for P13,000 with right to repurchase w/in 1 yr, but never
told his sister, Paz , about it. He was unable to repurchase, so ET and Raffinan executed a
deed of absolute sale and increased the price to 28,000.

6 months after the expiration to repurchase, ET went to Enrique Conejero (EC) and
showed him a copy of the Deed of Sale. So EC now went to Raffinan to redeem. He
offered 29,000 then later 34,000, but Raffinan refused.

Paz and EC filed case with CFI praying to be entitled to redemption rights. ET and
Raffinan contended that right to redemption has already elapsed.

CFI sale was an equitable mortgage, Raffinan should accept 34K and leave.

CA reversed, there was valid contract of sale and that their redemption prescribed
because they failed to tender payment. Issuance of check worth P10K not vaild tender.

merely offered a check for P10,000, which was not even legal tender and which the
Raffians rejected, in lieu of the price of P28,000 recited by the deed of sale. The factual
finding of the Court of Appeals to this effect is final and conclusive. Nor were the
vendees obligated to accept Conejero's promise to pay the balance by means of a loan to
be obtained in futuro from a bank.
Bona fide redemption necessarily imports a seasonable and valid tender of the entire
repurchase price, and this was not done. There is no cogent reason for requiring the
vendee to accept payment by installments from a redemptioner, as it would ultimately
result in an indefinite extension of the 30-day redemption period, when the purpose of the
law in fixing a short and definite term is clearly to avoid prolonged and anti-economic
uncertainty as to ownership of the thing sold (cf. Torrijos vs. Crisologo, et al)
Conejeros also contend that they be excused because Article 1620 only requires them to
pay REASONABLE PRICE for redemption. But Supreme Court held that: yes, 1620
provides that they should only pay reasonable price, but this still does not excuse them to
make valid tender of payment. Further, it was found by the court that they never even
raised the reasonableness of the price, they even offered up to P34,000.
Court held that a valid tender is indispensible, and Conejeros could have simply
consigned with the courts their payment to justify their prompt payment.
SC AFFIRMS CA DECISION

RESOLUTION - June 30, 1966. REYES, J. B. L., J.:

Petitioners, Paz Torres and Enrique Conejero, by motion of June 4, 1966, have asked this Court to reconsider and set
aside its decision of April 29, 1966, upon various grounds.
1. It is argued that this Court committed error in that it "Considered the 30-day period provided for in Article 1623 of the
new Civil Code" as a period of prescription. This assertion is gratuitous and unfounded. Nowhere in its decision has this
Court expressed or implied that the loss of petitioners' right of redemption was due to the bar of the Statute of
Limitations, or that it was a result of their failure to commence action within the 30-day period. If in page 7 of the main
decision reference was made to petitioners' failure to file it was merely to show that, unlike in the cases cited by them
(Cruz vs. Marcelino, 84 Phil. 709; Torio vs. Rosario, 93 Phil. 800), they had failed to take the action therein considered as
equivalent to the timely tender of the entire redemption price. This is readily apparent from a reading of paragraph 2 in
said page 7 of the decision.

ISSUES:
WON the Conejeros be still entitled to right of redemption because period has been suspended
upon offer of to redeem. (NO)

What was repeatedly asserted and ruled in our main decision is that the petitioners' right of redemption was lost because
they failed to make a valid tender of the entire redemption money within the period allotted by law; hence, the invoked
doctrine in Sempio vs. del Rosario, 44 Phil. 1, while correct law, is totally inapplicable. A decent regard for the Court on
the part of counsel requires that the latter should not attempt to distort this Court's rulings.

HELD:

2. While the co-owner's right of legal redemption (retracto legal de comuneros) is a substantive right, it is exceptional in
nature, limited in its duration and subject to strict compliance with the legal requirements. One of these is that the
redemptioner should tender payment of the redemption money within 30 days from written notice of the sale by the coowner's, and, as we have ruled, the buyer of the co-owner's share can not be compelled, nor is he obligated, to accept
payment in installments. Otherwise, the 30-day limitation fixed by law for the exercise of the right to redeem would
nullified, or be indefinitely evaded. If a partial payment can bind the purchaser, by what rule can the payment of the
balance be determined?

ON NOTICE

Supreme Court agreed with Conejeros that before the prescriptive period would start, a
written notice of the sale should be first given to them (article 1623). Now, Conejeros
contend that since they were never notified of the sale in writing, the period of
redemption should have never started.

But the Supreme Court disputes this, no form was required by 1623 on how written
notice was to be served. It was held to be sufficient and more than enough when ET went
to EC and provided him with a copy of the deed of Absolute sale. That was already notice
and hence from that day , Aug 19, the 30-day redemption period commences.
ON VALID TENDER OF PAYMENT

The next query is: did petitioners effectuate all the steps required for the redemption? We
agree with the Court of Appeals that they did not, for they failed to make a valid tender of
the price of the sale paid by the Raffians within the period fixed by law. Conejero

3. Whether or not the petitioners exercised diligence in asserting their willingness to pay is irrelevant. Redemption by the
co-owners of the vendor within 30 days is not a matter of intent; but is effectuated only by payment, or valid tender, of the
price within said period. How the redemptioners raise the money is immaterial; timeliness and completeness of payment
or tender are the things that matter.
4. The offer of the redemption price is not bona fide where it is shown that the offeror could not have made payment in
due time if the offer had been accepted. Note that the co-owner's right to redeem, being granted by law, is binding on the
purchaser of the undivided share by operation of law, and the latter's consent or acceptance is not required for the
existence of the right of redemption. The only matter to be investigated by the courts, therefore, is the timely of the right,
and the only way to exercise it is by a valid payment or tender within the 30 days prefixed by the Civil Code.
Wherefore the motion for reconsideration is denied.