Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    1719-CT (4) Castro v. Mendoza, Sr. - CHING

    Uploaded by

    achi
    (1) The petitioners, who were agricultural tenants, sought to exercise their right of redemption over property acquired by the municipality from one of the landowners. (2) For a redemption to be valid under the law, the redeeming party must tender the full purchase price simultaneously with their intention to redeem. (3) The Court ruled that the petitioners did not validly exercise their redemption rights because they only consigned a fraction of the purchase price and did not tender the full amount until years later, well beyond the 180 day period allowed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    1719-CT (4) Castro v. Mendoza, Sr. - CHING

    Uploaded by

    achi
    54 views2 pages
    (1) The petitioners, who were agricultural tenants, sought to exercise their right of redemption over property acquired by the municipality from one of the landowners. (2) For a redemption to be valid under the law, the redeeming party must tender the full purchase price simultaneously with their intention to redeem. (3) The Court ruled that the petitioners did not validly exercise their redemption rights because they only consigned a fraction of the purchase price and did not tender the full amount until years later, well beyond the 180 day period allowed.

    Original Title

    1719-CT (4) Castro v. Mendoza, Sr._CHING

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) The petitioners, who were agricultural tenants, sought to exercise their right of redemption over property acquired by the municipality from one of the landowners. (2) For a redemption to be valid under the law, the redeeming party must tender the full purchase price simultaneously with their intention to redeem. (3) The Court ruled that the petitioners did not validly exercise their redemption rights because they only consigned a fraction of the purchase price and did not tender the full amount until years later, well beyond the 180 day period allowed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    54 views2 pages

    1719-CT (4) Castro v. Mendoza, Sr. - CHING

    Uploaded by

    achi
    (1) The petitioners, who were agricultural tenants, sought to exercise their right of redemption over property acquired by the municipality from one of the landowners. (2) For a redemption to be valid under the law, the redeeming party must tender the full purchase price simultaneously with their intention to redeem. (3) The Court ruled that the petitioners did not validly exercise their redemption rights because they only consigned a fraction of the purchase price and did not tender the full amount until years later, well beyond the 180 day period allowed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    TENDER OR CONSIGNATION IS AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT TO THE PROPER EXERCISE OF

    THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION


    In making a repurchase, it is not sufficient that a person offering to redeem merely manifests his desire to
    repurchase. This statement of intention must be accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of
    payment of the full amount of the repurchase price. (Castro v. Mendoza, Sr., G.R. No. 212778, April 26, 2017)

    x—————x

    TENDER OR CONSIGNATION IS AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT TO THE PROPER EXERCISE OF


    THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
    Castro v. Mendoza, Sr.
    G.R. No. 212778, April 26, 2017
    Jardeleza, J.

    FACTS:
    This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Decision of CA. CA reversed and set aside
    issuances of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in connection with the execution of its
    decision. 

    Petitioners are agricultural tenants of the original Santos property. He has been in its actual possession and
    paying the agreed lease rentals. The controversy started when Jesus (owner-heir) sold his share in the original
    Santos property to respondent Municipality. Jesus sold his undivided interest therein of 2,132.42 square meters
    for the amount of P1.2 Million which the Municipality acquired for the expansion of the Bustos public market.

    Sales transaction between Jesus and Municipality were effected without issue from the petitioners. Municipality
    began construction of the public market. After the inauguration, petitioners filed their complaint for Maintenance
    of Peaceful Possession with prayer for Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction; Pre-emption and Redemption;
    and Damages before the PARAD against Municipality. In their complaint, petitioners "categorically manifested
    their serious intent to exercise their rights of pre-emption and redemption provided for under Sections 11 and
    12, Republic Act No. 3884, as amended." Petitioners deposited the amount of P2,300.00 as redemption price
    for the property. PARAD ruled in favor of the petitioners. DARAB affirmed but ruled that it is impractical to
    petitioners to redeem it where there is no showing of petitioners' capacity to pay the redemption price and
    directed instead Municipality to pay disturbance compensation to petitioners. Petitioners appealed to the CA.
    CA affirmed.

    Private respondents directly sought relief from the CA questioning: (xxx) (2) petitioners' belated and invalid
    tender of payment of the P1.2 Million redemption price (xxx). CA ruled in the favor of the private respondents.

    ISSUE:
    Whether petitioners timely and validly exercised their right of redemption under Section 12 of Republic Act No.
    3844 (RA 3844), as amended by RA 6389.

    HELD:
    No, petitioners failed to timely and validly exercised their right of redemption.

    Jurisprudence dictates that tender or consignation is an indispensable requirement to the proper exercise of the
    right of redemption by the agricultural lessee. An offer to redeem is validly effected through: (a) a formal
    tender with consignation, or (b) a complaint filed in court coupled with consignation of the redemption
    price within the prescribed period. In making a repurchase, it is not sufficient that a person offering to redeem
    merely manifests his desire to repurchase. This statement of intention must be accompanied by an actual and
    simultaneous tender of payment of the full amount of the repurchase price, i.e., the consideration of the
    sale, otherwise the offer to redeem will be held ineffectual.

    Petitioners belatedly tendered payment and effected consignation of the redemption price of P1.2 million.
    Petitioners filed on August 26, 1994 a Motion for Consignation of Reasonable Redemption Amount of only
    P2,300.00 for the 2,132.42 square meters landholding sold by Jesus to respondent Municipality. The
    discrepancy between the amounts of P2,300.00 and P1.2 Million clearly calls to question petitioners'
    willingness and ability to pay. Even if we liberally reckon the prescriptive period to tender payment of the
    redemption price from the date when the original ruling of the PARAD became final and executory on
    November 27, 2003, petitioners still belatedly tendered and consigned payment of the redemption price, on
    May 9 and 10, 2006, respectively, way beyond the 180-day prescriptive period provided by law.

    Considering that petitioners failed to consign the full redemption price of P1.2 Million when they filed the
    complaint before the PARAD in August 22, 1994, there was no valid exercise of the right to redeem the
    property. It bears stressing that the right of redemption under Section 12 of RA 3844, as amended, is an
    essential mandate of the agrarian reform legislation to implement the State's policy of owner-cultivatorship and
    to achieve a dignified, self-reliant existence for small fanners. Such laudable and commendable policy,
    however, is never intended to unduly transgress the corresponding rights of purchasers of land. Consequently,
    petitioners cannot redeem the property and gain its ownership.

    Hence, petitioners failed to timely and validly exercised their right of redemption.

    You might also like