Canuto v. Mariano 37Phil.

840


Topic: Parol Evidence Rule
Facts: Espiridiona Canuto executed a Deed of Sale of land in favor of Juan
Mariano reserving the right to repurchase within one year from the date of
sale. One year lapsed and Canuto failed to exercise the right to repurchase.
When Mariano claimed absolute ownership over the land subject of the sale,
Canuto alleged that she be given an extension to repurchase. Canuto claims
that Mariano agreed but the latter failed to appear at the place and time
agreed upon to receive the money for the repurchase and for executing the
necessary Deed of Repurchase. Canuto then filed a case to compel Mariano
to receive the purchase money and execute the necessary documents. To
prove the alleged oral extension of the period to repurchase, one witness
who was alleged to be present when Mariano agreed to extend the time was
presented. The trial court ruled that Canuto may exercise her right to
repurchase. Mariano appealed asking that parol evidence may not be
introduced to prove the alleged extension of time.
Issue: Whether parol evidence may be introduced to prove the alleged
extension of time.

Ruling:Yes, considering the circumstances. Refusal by the vendee of a valid
tender or offer of purchase price in the exercise of the vendors right to
repurchase preserves the vendors right to repurchase. The defendant
having extended the time within which the plaintiff could repurchase the
land on condition that she would find the money and make repurchase within
the extended period, it is clear that he cannot be permitted to repudiate his
promise, it appearing that the plaintiff stood ready to make the payment
within the extended period, and was only prevented from doing so by the
conduct of the defendant himself. The SC citing the cases of
Rosales vs. Reyes and Ordoveza (25 Phil. Rep., 495),
ruled that that a bona fide offer or tender of the price agreed upon for
the repurchase is sufficient to preserve the rights of the party making it,
without the necessity of making judicial deposit, if the offer or tender is
refused. The case of and in the case of Fructo vs. Fuentes (15 Phil. Rep., 362)
was further cited holding that in such cases when diligent effort is made by
the vendor of the land to exercise the right to repurchase reserved by him in
his deed of sale "and fails by reason of circumstances over which he has no
control, we are of the opinion and so hold that he does not lose his right to
repurchase on the day of maturity."