BERNARDO LEGASPI vs CA & LEONARDO

SALCEDO
FACTS:
Bernardo B. Legaspi is the registered owner of two
parcels of land which he sold to his son-in-law,
Leonardo B. Salcedo, on October 15, 1965 for the sum
of P25,000.00 with the right to repurchase the same
within five years from the execution of the deed of sale.
Before the expiry date of the repurchase period,
Legaspi offered and tendered to Salcedo the sum of
P25,000.00 for the repurchase of the two parcels of
land which was refused by Salcedo without justifiable
or legal cause. Salcedo refused to convey the
properties to Legaspi as requested by the latter and so
Legaspi deposited in the Office of the Clerk of Court of
First Instance of Cavite City the amount of P25,125.00.
Despite earnest efforts towards a compromise after
consignation of the repurchase money had been made,
Salcedo refused to reconvey the properties in question.
Plaintiff now petitioner filed a complaint with the Court
of First Instance of Cavite for reconveyance to enforce
his right to repurchase two parcels of land which he
sold to the defendant, now private respondent,
pursuant to a sale with pacto de retro.
Salcedo denied that Legaspi ever offered and tendered
to him the sum of P25,000.00 or requested the
execution of the corresponding deed of reconveyance.
He alleged that Legaspi asked for an extension of one
year within which to repurchase the two parcels of land.
He also denied that earnest efforts towards a
compromise were pursued by Legaspi for the latter
merely proposed for an extension of one year of the
right to repurchase.
Salcedo claimed that Legaspi was no longer entitled to
repurchase the properties in question for failure to
exercise his right within the stipulated period in
accordance with Article 1250 of the Civil Code under
which Salcedo maintained he was entitled to the
payment of P42,250.00 instead of only P25,000.00.
Article 1250 of the Civil Code provides as follows:
In case an extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency
stipulated should supervene, the value of the currency at the
time of the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of
payment, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

amounted to a lawful exercise of the right to repurchase

the property involved in the instant case. Neither was a
valid consignation made seasonably in court of the
amount of P25,000.00 with which to make the
repurchase.
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied.
Hence, this appeal by certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner validly exercised
his right to repurchase the properties within the fiveyear period as stipulated in the sale with pacto de
retro entered into between the petitioner as vendor a
retro and private respondent as vendee a retro
RULING: Yes, there was a valid exercise of
petitioners right to repurchase the subject parcels
of land.
RATIO:
We rule that it was erroneous on the part of the
respondent court to reverse the factual finding of the
trial court that a valid tender of payment was made
seasonably. The records do not show that this finding
is grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or
conjectures.
The records show that the right of repurchase was
seasonably exercised. The records clearly manifest
that the petitioner was able to make a valid tender of
payment on the 14th of October 1970 by offering
personally the amount of P25,000.00 to the private
respondent who refused to accept it claiming that the
money was devalued. Thereafter, the petitioner
informed the private respondent that he would be
depositing the same amount with the proper court.. The
trial court correctly ruled that there was proper exercise
of the right to repurchase within the five-year period not
for the reason that the deposit of the repurchase
money amounted to a tender of payment but for what
the evidence submitted before it proved. The appellate
court erred when it did not apply the well-accepted
doctrine that:
Conclusions and findings of fact by the trial court are entitled to
great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for
strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better
position to examine real evidence, as well as to observe the
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case.

(Chase vs. Buencamino, Sr., 130 SCRA 365)

CFI Cavite Ruling: The lower court ruled in favor of
plaintiff-petitioner Legaspi and ordered defendantrespondent Salcedo to deliver the land immediately
upon receipt of decision plus payment of damages.
CA Ruling: On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed
the decision and dismissed the complaint. It held that
the appellee never made a valid tender of payment that

The decision of the former Court of Appeals is hereby

REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the
Court of First Instance of Cavite, 7th Judicial District,
Branch III is REINSTATED but MODIFIED by the
deletion of the award of P20,000.00 for moral, punitive,
exemplary and corrective damages. In all other
respects, the trial court's decision is AFFIRMED.