Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 332 views

    Conejero v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 5MiN6I78I0
    1) Enrique Torres sold his half interest in a property to the Raffiñans with a right to repurchase within 1 year, which he did not exercise. 2) 6 months after the redemption period expired, Enrique executed a deed of absolute sale to the Raffiñans. 3) When Enrique showed his brother-in-law Conejero a copy of the deed in August 1952, Conejero sought to redeem the interest but did not make a valid tender of the full price within the 30 day period, offering only a check for less than the price and promising to pay the balance later, which the Raffiñans rejected.

    Copyright:

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

    Conejero v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 5MiN6I78I0
    332 views1 page
    1) Enrique Torres sold his half interest in a property to the Raffiñans with a right to repurchase within 1 year, which he did not exercise. 2) 6 months after the redemption period expired, Enrique executed a deed of absolute sale to the Raffiñans. 3) When Enrique showed his brother-in-law Conejero a copy of the deed in August 1952, Conejero sought to redeem the interest but did not make a valid tender of the full price within the 30 day period, offering only a check for less than the price and promising to pay the balance later, which the Raffiñans rejected.

    Original Description:

    CIVIL LAW 2

    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) Enrique Torres sold his half interest in a property to the Raffiñans with a right to repurchase within 1 year, which he did not exercise. 2) 6 months after the redemption period expired, Enrique executed a deed of absolute sale to the Raffiñans. 3) When Enrique showed his brother-in-law Conejero a copy of the deed in August 1952, Conejero sought to redeem the interest but did not make a valid tender of the full price within the 30 day period, offering only a check for less than the price and promising to pay the balance later, which the Raffiñans rejected.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    332 views1 page

    Conejero v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous 5MiN6I78I0
    1) Enrique Torres sold his half interest in a property to the Raffiñans with a right to repurchase within 1 year, which he did not exercise. 2) 6 months after the redemption period expired, Enrique executed a deed of absolute sale to the Raffiñans. 3) When Enrique showed his brother-in-law Conejero a copy of the deed in August 1952, Conejero sought to redeem the interest but did not make a valid tender of the full price within the 30 day period, offering only a check for less than the price and promising to pay the balance later, which the Raffiñans rejected.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    63 Conejero v. CA loan to be obtained in future from a bank.

    Bona fide redemption necessarily


    G.R. No. L-21812 April 29, 1966 | REYES, J.B.L imports a seasonable and valid tender of the entire repurchase price, and this
    TOPIC: Redemption - NCC 1619-1623 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
    FACTS: indefinite extension of the 30-day redemption period, when the purpose of the
     Paz Torres and Enrique Torres were co-owners pro indiviso of a lot and law in fixing a short and definite term is clearly to avoid prolonged and anti-
    building in Cebu City that both had inherited from their deceased economic uncertainty as to ownership of the thing sold.
    parents.
     Enrique Torres sold his half interest to the Spouses Raffiñan with right to The right of a redemptioner to pay a reasonable price under Article 1620 of the
    repurchase within 1 year. Civil Code does not excuse him from the duty to make proper tender of the
     6 months after the expiration of the right to repurchase, said Enrique price that can be honestly deemed reasonable under the circumstances,
    executed a deed of absolute sale of the same half interest in the without prejudice to final arbitration by the courts; nor does it authorize said
    property in favor of the Raffiñans. This deed of absolute sale had not redemptioner to demand that the vendee accept payment by installments.
    been brought to the attention of Enrique's sister and co-owner, Paz
    Torres de Conejero, nor of her husband, until August 19, 1952, when The redemption price should either be fully offered in legal tender or else validly
    Enrique Torres showed his brother-in-law, a copy of the deed of consigned in court because it is only by such means that the buyer can
    absolute sale of his share of the property in favor of the Raffiñans. become certain that the offer to redeem is one made seriously and in good
     Conejero forthwith went to the buyers, offering to redeem his brother- faith. But while consignation is not always necessary because legal redemption
    in-law's share. is not made to discharge a pre-existing debt. The right of redemption pertaining
     Conejeros filed a complaint seeking to be declared entitled to redeem to a co-owner should be exercised by means of a valid payment or tender of
    the half interest of Enrique Torres; to which the Raffiñans made answer, the redemption price within the thirty-day period. The buyer of the co-owner’s
    claiming absolute title to the property in dispute and pleading that share cannot be compelled to accept payment of the redemption price in
    plaintiffs lost their right of redemption because they failed to exercise it installments. The diligence of the co-owner in asserting willingness to redeem is
    within the statutory period. immaterial. Timeliness and completeness of payment or tender are the things
    that matter.
    ISSUES: Whether there was a valid redemption? NO
    It is not difficult to discern why the redemption price should either be fully
    HELD: offered in legal tender or else validly consigned in court. Only by such means
    In legal preemption or redemption under the Civil Code of the Philippines, can the buyer become certain that the offer to redeem is one made seriously
    written notice of the sale to all possible redemptioner is indispensable. Mere and in good faith. A buyer cannot be expected to entertain an offer of
    knowledge of the sale, acquired in some other manner by the redemptioner, is redemption without attendant evidence that the redemptioner can, and is
    not sufficient. Article 1623 of the Civil Code does not prescribe any particular willing to accomplish the repurchase immediately. A different rule would leave
    form of notice, or distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner. So long, the buyer open to harassment by speculators or crackpots, as well as to
    therefore, as the latter is informed in writing of the sale and the particulars unnecessary prolongation of the redemption period, contrary to the policy of
    thereof, the 30-day period for redemption starts running. In the case at bar, the the law.
    redemptioner admit that their coowner-vendor gave them a copy of the deed
    of sale of his undivided share in favor of respondent spouses. The furnishing of
    this copy was equivalent to the giving of written notice required by law.

    As a necessary consequence, the 30-day period for the legal redemption by


    co-owner Paz Torres began to run from August 19, 1952, ending on September
    18, of the same year.

    Conejeros failed to make a valid tender of the price of the sale paid by the
    Raffiñans within the period fixed by law. Conejero merely offered a check for
    P10,000, which was not even legal tender and which the Raffiñans rejected, in
    lieu of the price of P28,000 recited by the deed of sale. Nor were the vendees
    obligated to accept Conejero's promise to pay the balance by means of a

    You might also like