(88) Immaculata V Navarro, GR L-42230, November 26, 1986 [Per J.

Paras, Second Division];

April 15, 1988 [Per J. Paras, Special Former Second Division]

FACTS: The petitioner Lauro Immaculata, represented by his wife Amparo Velasco as guardian
alleged that on or about December, 1969 Juanito Victoria and others succeeded in causing
plaintiff Lauro Immaculata, petitioner herein, to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
Juanito Victoria, by unduly taking advantage of the mental illness and/or weakness of petitioner
and thru deceit and fraudulent means, purportedly disposed of by way of absolute sale, parcel of
land for the sum of P 58k, which petitioner supposedly received, but in truth and in fact did not;
that although it was made to appear that petitioner voluntarily and freely appeared before the
Notary Public, that based on said fictitious and simulated sale, an action for specific performance
was filed by Juanito Victoria, that no proper and valid service of summons was ever made upon
the petitioner, and thus, notwithstanding, the latter was declared in default and judgment by
default was rendered against him; that said judgment by default was null and void, having been
rendered against a person who is/was admittedly insane and over whose person, the respondent
court did not validly acquire jurisdiction; that the judgment by default was not properly served
upon the petitioner. In an alternative cause of action Petitioner prays that he be allowed to
repurchase the property within five (5) years from the time judgment is rendered by the
respondent court upholding the validity of the proceedings and the sale since the land in question
was originally covered by a Free Patent title.

Private respondents moved for the complaint’s dismissal. Respondent Court dismissed the
complaint on the ground of res judicata.

The question of the right of legal redemption has remained unresolved. To allow petitioner to
legally redeem the property.

What have we learned about the topic?

CONSIGNATION, UNNECESSARY. — The right to redeem is a RIGHT, not an obligation,

therefore, there is no consignation required to preserve the right to redeem.

To preserve the right to redeem, consignation is not required; but to actually redeem, there must
of course be payment or consignation (deposit) itself.

What does the case teaches us?

Whether or not to preserve the right to redeem, is consignation required?

No. The right to redeem is a RIGHT, not an obligation, therefore, there is no consignation
required to preserve the right to redeem. Here the sale was originally executed sometime in
December, 1969, it was only on February 3, 1974 when, as prayed for by private respondent, and
as ordered by the court a quo, a "deed of conveyance" was formally executed. Since offer to
redeem was made on March 24, 1975, this was clearly within the five-year period of legal
redemption allowed by the Public Land Act. 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.