[ G.R. No. 9240. September 29, 1914 ] 28 Phil. 89
[ G.R. No. 9240. September 29, 1914 ]
EMIGDIO UMALE ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. ALVARO FERNANDEZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I SI O N
PER CURIAM:
This appeal through a bill of exceptions was raised by counsel for the defendants from the judgment of June 10, 1912, whereby the Honorable Vicente Jocson, judge, ordered the latter to execute an instrument of redemption of the property in question in favor of the plaintiffs for the sum of P816.80, and directed that the fees of the notary attesting the instrument should be chargeable to the plaintiffs, and the costs of the suit to the defendants.
On January 19, 1912, the plaintiffs Emigdio Umale, a widower, and Margarita, Tomasa and Miguel Umale, his children had by his wife. Juana Fernandez, now deceased, filed through an attorney a complaint against Alvaro Fernandez and Engracia Lavadia, alleging therein that, on April 13, 1905, the plaintiff Emigdio Umale and his wife, during her lifetime, sold to the defendant spouses under pacto de retro or right of repurchase, without fixing any period for the redemption, a parcel of land planted with about one hundred coconut trees, its boundaries being specified, situated in the pueblo of Pagsanjan, Laguna; that, although the price of the sale was in the beginning P600, it was subsequently increased to P816.80, on account of the plaintiffs’ having received from the defendants various partial payments as an increase of the price; that, on June 12, 1909, the defendants, renouncing their right of having irrevocably acquired the ownership of the property sold under pacto de retro, owing to the lapse of the legal period of four years, granted to the plaintiffs an extension of time for its redemption and executed for this purpose the document in Tagalog, the translation of which is as follows:
“I, Alvaro Fernandez, married, have issued this receipt in favor of Emigdio Umale as proof of our agreement concerning their coconut land which has been sold to us under pacto de retro and which they may redeem at any time they may have money of their own without borrowing it from another person. In witness whereof, I have signed hereunder, in Pagsanjan, on this date, June 12, 1909.”
That, on or about November 9, 1911, the plaintiffs delivered to the defendants and the latter accepted the sum of P800, plaintiff Umale’s own money, on account of the price of the redemption of the said property, and that, on or about the 11th of the same month, the plaintiffs delivered to the defendants and the latter accepted, on the same account, the sum of P18.80, plaintiff Umale’s own money, which second delivery completed the total sum of the price of the purchase and sale, under right of redemption, of the property in question which was thereby resold to the plaintiffs who, pursuant to the agreement made, took possession of the said land so redeemed; and that the defendants not only had not, up to date, executed the instrument of redemption, but they were disturbing the plaintiffs in their possession of the redeemed property, by means of a complaint charging them with usurpation of possession, notwithstanding that the parties had stipulated the transfer of the possession of the said property to the plaintiffs, by virtue of the said redemption. The latter, therefore, prayed that the defendants be ordered to execute in favor of the plaintiffs the instrument of redemption of the said property, with the costs of the suit against the defendants.
The demurrer to the complaint was overruled by an order of February 12, 1912, an exception thereto was taken by the defendants, and the latter’s counsel set forth in answer to the complaint: that he made a general denial of each and all of the allegations of the complaint, and, as a special defense, alleged that Emigdio Umale and his wife, Juana Fernandez, sold and conveyed to the defendants the disputed parcel of land, without any special stipulation as to the period for its redemption, and that the vendors did not avail themselves of their right of repurchase within the term allowed by law, wherefore the property in question, free of all charge and encumbrance, now belonged to the defendants. He therefore prayed that his clients be absolved from the complaint, with the costs against the plaintiffs.
After a hearing of the case and an examination of the parol and documentary evidence introduced by both parties, the court rendered the judgment aforementioned, to which counsel for the defendants excepted and asked for a rehearing and a reopening of the case. This motion was overruled, an exception was taken by the said counsel and, the proper bill of exceptions having been presented by him, the same was approved, certified, and forwarded to the clerk of this court, together with all the documents and other evidence in the case. In this suit counsel for the plaintiffs seeks to have the court order the defendants to execute, in behalf of his clients, an instrument of resale of the property mentioned in the complaint, with the costs against the defendants. These latter alleged in their answer that, since the plaintiffs did not avail themselves of their right of redemption within the period fixed by law, the property in question now belongs to the defendants, and prayed that they be absolved from the complaint, with the costs against the plaintiffs.
After a careful examination of the issues raised in this suit by the litigating parties, all the Justices of this court unanimously agree that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with the costs against the appellants.
The majority of this court accept the findings of the trial court, as well as the findings that the plaintiffs¦¦ are entitled to redeem the property sold to the defendants under right of redemption and that the repurchase of the property in question was effected on the 9th and 11th of November, 1911, through the delivery by the plaintiffs to the defendants of the sum of P816.80 as the price of the redemption and of the property redeemed by the plaintiffs from the defendants.
Although the period of four years fixed, by law for the resale of the property in dispute had already expired on April 14, 1909, as the sale under right of repurchase was effected without stipulating any period for the redemption, wherefore, after the lapse of the four years prescribed by article 1508 of the Civil Code, the defendant-vendees irrevocably acquired the ownership of the property sold, pursuant to the provisions of the succeeding article, 1509, of the same code, for the reason that the vendors had not returned to the vendee the price of the sale or made the other payments specified in article 1518 of the said code; yet inasmuch as the said spouses, the vendees, had renounced their right and one of them, the husband Alvaro Fernandez, had granted to the plaintiff-vendors the privilege of redeeming the property at any time, as appears from the document executed and signed by the said Fernandez on June 12, 1909, Exhibit B inserted in the complaint, through the renewal of the period for redemption or the extension of the same, it must be held that the said period for redemption was still running, and that the vendors were entitled to redeem the property sold. It was under these premises that Emigdio Umale and his two children, Margarita and Miguel, the successors of their deceased mother, Juana Fernandez, delivered to Fernandez’ wife the redemption price, P816.80, and, a few days afterwards, took charge and entered into the possession of the redeemed property, in accordance with the agreement made with her.
It is held that the granting of a new period, or the extension of that prescribed in article 1508 of the Civil Code, is valid and effective, as it is not contrary to any provision of law and because it sprang from the disinterestedness of the vendees and the desire to benefit the vendors, the redemptioners, for the reason that the deceased Juana Fernandez, Umale’s wife and the other plaintiffs’ mother, was a niece of the defendant Alvaro Fernandez.
In the absence of an express stipulation with regard to the period of redemption the purchaser, in the exercise of the freedom to make contracts that is possessed by all, has the power to extend the period allowed by law, provided that the new period stipulated does not exceed the ten years fixed by article 1508 of the code. For nothing in this article prohibits an extension, by agreement, of the four years, which is the period prescribed by law in cases where, in sales with right of repurchase, no period for redemption has been fixed by the parties.
For the foregoing reasons, whereby the errors assigned to the judgment appealed from are deemed to have been refuted, the said judgment should be, as it is hereby, affirmed, with the costs against the appellants.
Arellano, C. J., Johnson and Araullo, JJ., concur.
Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur in the result.