Immaculata vs. Navarro

A homesteader or free patent grantee’s right of legal redemption under the Public Land Act is exercisable within five years from the date of the formal deed of conveyance, not from the original sale. To preserve the right to redeem, an offer to redeem suffices; consignation is not required, but actual redemption must be accomplished by payment or consignation in court.

Lauro Immaculata acquired a parcel of land by free patent. In December 1969, he sold the land to Juanito Victoria. Subsequently, on February 3, 1974, pursuant to an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, a formal “deed of conveyance” was executed to transfer title to the buyer. On March 24, 1975, petitioner, through his wife as guardian ad litem, filed Civil Case No. 20968 before the same court. The complaint sought to annul the sale for alleged insanity and intimidation and, in the alternative, prayed for the allowance of legal redemption of the property.

• Acquisition and Sale: Petitioner Lauro Immaculata obtained a parcel of land through a free patent. In December 1969, he sold the land to Juanito Victoria by a private transaction.
• Formal Conveyance Ordered: On February 3, 1974, as prayed for by private respondent and ordered by the court a quo (CFI Rizal), a formal deed of conveyance was executed to transfer the property and cause the issuance of title in the name of Juanito Victoria, free from any liens or encumbrances.
• Complaint for Annulment and Redemption: On March 24, 1975, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 20968 before the CFI of Rizal. The complaint included a principal cause of action for annulment of the sale on the ground of alleged insanity and intimidation, and an alternative cause of action praying that, should the sale be sustained, petitioner be allowed to legally redeem the property.
• Offer to Redeem: Petitioner made an offer to redeem the property on March 24, 1975, the date of the filing of the complaint. No consignation of the redemption price accompanied the offer.
• Supreme Court’s Previous Decision: In its decision of November 26, 1986, the Supreme Court resolved the petition but did not address the alternative prayer for legal redemption. The issue of the validity of the sale was barred by res judicata and was no longer pressed by petitioner.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner sought reconsideration, arguing that the Court had inadvertently missed the matter of legal redemption. The motion was granted.

• Right of Legal Redemption: Petitioner contended that the alternative cause of action for legal redemption should be granted. The offer to redeem was made on March 24, 1975, which fell within the five‑year redemption period because the period should be counted from the formal deed of conveyance executed on February 3, 1974, not from the original sale in December 1969.
• Consignation Not Required: Petitioner maintained that consignation of the redemption price was not a prerequisite to preserve the right to redeem; an offer to redeem was sufficient.

• Res Judicata and Prescription: Respondents argued that questions on the validity of the sale were barred by res judicata. (The Supreme Court acknowledged that this point was no longer pressed by petitioner.)
• Sincerity of Redemption: Respondents alleged that the offer to redeem was not sincere because petitioner failed to consign the redemption amount in court. The implication was that the right to redeem was lost due to the absence of consignation.

• Redemption Period: Whether the offer to redeem was made within the five‑year legal redemption period under the Public Land Act.
• Consignation: Whether consignation of the redemption price is required to preserve the right of legal redemption.

• Redemption Period: The five‑year period for legal redemption was counted from February 3, 1974, when the formal deed of conveyance was executed by order of the court, not from the original sale in December 1969. The offer to redeem on March 24, 1975, was therefore well within the statutory period. The Court relied on Abuan v. Garcia (14 SCRA 759, 761) regarding the reckoning of the redemption period under the Public Land Act.
• Consignation: Consignation is not necessary to preserve the right to redeem; an offer to redeem suffices. The right to redeem is a right, not an obligation, and the law does not require consignation to perfect or maintain that right. However, to actually effect redemption, payment or consignation must eventually be made. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the trial court for acceptance of petitioner’s payment or consignation of whatever he had received from respondent at the time of the transaction.

• Legal Redemption Period under the Public Land Act — For land acquired by free patent, the five‑year period to exercise the right of legal redemption is reckoned from the date of the formal deed of conveyance, not from an earlier informal sale. (Citing Abuan v. Garcia, 14 SCRA 759, 761.)
• Consignation Not Required to Preserve Right to Redeem — The right to redeem is a right, not an obligation. To preserve that right, a mere offer to redeem is sufficient; consignation is not required. However, to actually redeem and consummate the right, payment or consignation must be made. (Citing De Jesus v. Garcia, C.A. 47 O.G. 2406; Rosales v. Reyes, 25 Phil. 495; Vda. de Quirino v. Palarca, L‑28269, Aug. 16, 1969; Villegas v. Capistrano, 9 Phil. 416.)

• “The right to redeem is a RIGHT, not an obligation, therefore, there is no consignation required … to preserve the right to redeem (Villegas v. Capistrano, 9 Phil. 416).”
• “To preserve the right to redeem, consignation is not required; but to actually redeem, there must of course be payment or consignation (deposit) itself.”

• Abuan v. Garcia, 14 SCRA 759, 761 — Followed. The five‑year legal redemption period for land acquired by free patent runs from the execution of the formal deed of conveyance.
• De Jesus v. Garcia, C.A. 47 O.G. 2406 — Followed. Consignation is not required to preserve the right to redeem.
• Rosales v. Reyes, 25 Phil. 495 — Followed. An offer to redeem, without consignation, is sufficient to keep the right alive.
• Vda. de Quirino v. Palarca, L‑28269, Aug. 16, 1969 — Followed. Reiterated the rule that consignation is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the right of legal redemption.
• Villegas v. Capistrano, 9 Phil. 416 — Followed. The right to redeem is not lost by the mere failure to consign if an offer has been made.

• Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141) — The right of legal redemption of land acquired by free patent is governed by this Act. The five‑year redemption period was applied, and the Court interpreted the reckoning point as the date of formal conveyance.

Fernan (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concurred.