Case Digest (G.R. No. L-42230)
Facts:
Lauro Immaculata, represented by his wife Amparo Velasco as guardian ad litem, petitioner, vs. Hon. Pedro C. Navarro, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch No. II, and Heirs of Juanito Victoria, namely: Lolita, Tomas, Benjamin, Virginia, Brenda and Elvie, all surnamed Victoria, and Juanita Naval, surviving widow; and, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, respondents, G.R. No. L-42230, April 15, 1988, the Supreme Court Special Former Second Division, Paras, J., writing.Petitioner had originally acquired a parcel of public land by free patent. At some point a sale/transfer of that parcel to private respondent Juanito Victoria was executed (the sale was said to have been originally effected in December 1969), and later, in compliance with a prayer and an order of the court below, a formal deed of conveyance was executed on February 3, 1974. Disputes arose concerning the transaction, and petitioner filed an action (Civil Case No. 20968) on March 24, 1975 before the defunct Court of First Instance of Rizal. In that complaint petitioner presented — alternatively — a prayer for legal redemption should the sale be held valid.
The case proceeded through the trial court and ultimately reached this Court. This Court rendered a decision dated November 26, 1986. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that decision, pressing the point that the petitioner's right of legal redemption had not been considered. The Court granted reconsideration limited to the redemption question, found that the offer to redeem on March 24, 1975 fell within the five-year redemption period under the Public Land Act (taking the relevant date as the formal deed of February 3, 1974), and ordered modification of the November 26, 1986 decision to permit legal redemption and to remand the case to the court a quo to accept payment or consignation b...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner's offer to redeem timely and did petitioner have a right of legal redemption over the parcel in question?
- Is consignation required to preserve or to effect the right of legal ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)