Topic: Retroactive application

Jaime Tan Jr. vs Court of Appeals, et al.

GR No. 136368; 16 January 2002
Puno, J.

Facts:
 The case involves a 34,829 sqm of land in Bunawan, Davao City registered in the
name of Jaime Tan.
 Tan executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of spouses Magdangal for P59,200.
With an agreement giving Tan 1 year to redeem or repurchase the property.
 Tan’s heirs filed a suit against Magdangals for reformation of instrument because the
real intention of parties was to conclude an equitable mortgage not deed of sale.
 RTC Davao rendered in favor of plaintiff Tan, Jr.
 Sps. Magdangal appealed to CA, which affirmed RTC decision.
 Sps. Magdangal filed a motion for consolidation and writ of possession claiming that
120 days redemption period commenced on 20 Oct and has already expired.
 Tan, Jr. filed a writ of execution and thereafter filed a manifestation and motion of its
intention to redeem the property along with a deposit of repurchase price.
 RTC denied Sps. Magdangal’s motion for consolidation and writ of possession, and
considered P116k deposit by plaintiff as full payment of redemption price.
- Cueto v Collantes. 120 days period to pay amount plus interest should be
reckoned from date of Entry of Judgment, which was 13 March 1996. Plaintiff
made a deposit on 17 April 1996, within the 120-day period.

Issue:
WON the revised rules on finality of judgment shall be retroactively applied

Held:
No

Ratio:
 Section 1, Rule 39 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Procedure should not be given
retroactive effect in this case as it would result in great injustice to the petitioner.
o Undoubtedly, petitioner has the right to redeem the subject lot and this right is
a substantive right. Petitioner followed the procedural rule then existing as well
as the decisions of this Court governing the reckoning date of the period of
redemption when he redeemed the subject lot.
o It is difficult to reconcile the retroactive application of this procedural rule with
the rule of fairness. Petitioner cannot be penalized with the loss of the subject
lot when he faithfully followed the laws and the rule on the period of
redemption when he made the redemption.
 Petitioner fought to recover this lot from 1988. To lose it because of a change of
procedure on the date of reckoning of the period of redemption is inequitous. The
manner of exercising the right cannot be changed and the change applied
retroactively if to do so will defeat the right of redemption of the petitioner which is
already vested.