G.R. No. L-45510 - Legaspi vs. Court of Appeals

Bernardo B. Legaspi, the petitioner, entered into a sale with pacto de retro with his son-in-law, Leonardo B. Salcedo, on October 15, 1965, involving two parcels of land (Lots Nos. 3962 and 3963 of the Imus Estate).
The deed of sale expressly provided the right to repurchase within a fixed period of five years from the execution of the deed.

Prior to the expiration of the repurchase period (October 15, 1970), Legaspi purportedly tendered the required repurchase price of P25,000.00 to Salcedo.
The petitioner further bolstered his claim by depositing the amount of P25,000.00 (with an additional P125.00, totaling P25,125.00) with the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Cavite City on October 15, 1970, supported by an official receipt.
Despite this tender and deposit, Salcedo allegedly refused to execute the deed of reconveyance or reconvey the properties back to Legaspi.

Legaspi (petitioner) asserted that his tender of payment was a valid exercise of his right to repurchase as provided in the sale with pacto de retro.
Salcedo (respondent), in his answer with a compulsory counterclaim, denied that an effective offer of repurchase had been made and contended that any repurchase should involve a revised sum of P42,250.00 based on Article 1250 of the Civil Code, arguing that the amount tendered was devalued due to inflation or deflation.
Salcedo maintained that there was no valid consignation or timely tender that would justify the repurchase, thereby justifying his retention of the properties.

The tender of payment (and subsequent deposit) amounted to the valid exercise of the right to repurchase.
The properties should be reconveyed to Legaspi automatically upon tender, with the respondent being held liable for damages including yearly computed sums for the period of wrongful retention, as well as moral and attorney’s fees.

The trial court’s decision ordered the cancellation of the annotation of the sale with pacto de retro on the properties’ titles.

The appellate court held there was no valid tender or consignation of the repurchase money made seasonably.
It questioned the factual basis of the trial court’s finding regarding the exact time and manner of the consignation, despite the existence of an official receipt.

A motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the petitioner’s appeal by certiorari.

The petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals improperly disturbed the trial court’s factual findings, particularly on the credibility and the tender of payment evidence.
It was contended that the appellate court erred in its conclusion that no valid consignation or tender of payment was made, despite documentary evidence (the official receipt) showing that the payment was tendered on October 15, 1970.

Whether the petitioner validly exercised his right to repurchase the properties within the prescribed five-year period under the sale with pacto de retro.

Does the tender of payment, evidenced by the deposit in court supported by an official receipt, suffice as a valid exercise of the repurchase right?
Can the discrepancies raised regarding the time of the consignation (i.e., whether it was at 10:00 AM or 3:00 PM) be deemed substantial enough to undermine the validity of the tender?

Whether the appellate court was justified in disturbing the trial court’s factual findings pertaining to:

The occurrence and timeliness of the tender of payment.
The overall credibility of the witnesses and documentary evidence indicating that the repurchase price was tendered within the deadline.

Whether the additional claims made by Salcedo regarding the adjustment of the repurchase price based on Article 1250 of the Civil Code have merit in light of the tender and deposit made by Legaspi.