Title
Torio vs. Rosario
Case
G.R. No. L-5536
Decision Date
Sep 25, 1953
Laureana Torio, a co-owner, sought legal redemption of her husband’s sold share without prior tender. The Supreme Court ruled no prior tender is required; timely filing suffices.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5536)

Legal Framework

The applicable law governing this case is the old Civil Code, particularly Article 1523 on legal redemption and Article 1524 regarding the period for redemption, which is fixed at nine days. The decision hinges on the interpretation of these provisions in the context of the facts presented.

Factual Background

Petitioner Laureana Torio and her husband, Julian Raymundo, co-owned a parcel of land, where Julian transferred a half interest to Laureana through a donation propter nuptias executed on April 14, 1937. Subsequently, Julian sold his remaining undivided interest to Nicanor Rosario on May 4, 1944, with the sale properly registered. On May 12, 1944, Laureana filed for legal redemption, claiming her right based on her co-ownership, and she deposited the redemption price of P40 on August 17, 1949. The trial court dismissed her action on the grounds that she failed to make a prior offer to repurchase before filing her claim.

Trial Court's Ruling

The trial court concluded that Laureana Torio lost her right of redemption as she did not make a prior offer to repurchase the property before initiating legal proceedings. This decision was founded on the interpretation that a tender of the redemption price was a sine qua non condition for exercising the right of legal redemption.

Appellate Issues

The pivotal legal question presented for determination is whether Laureana's failure to make a prior offer negated her right to redeem the property despite initiating legal action within the stipulated nine-day period after the sale had been recorded.

Court's Analysis and Findings

Upon review, the higher court found that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the law. It established that a prior tender of the redemption money is not a prerequisite for the exercise of the right of legal redemption. Citing relevant jurisprudence from De la Cruz vs. Marcelino, the court clarified that while the law outlines conditions concerning payments, it does not impose a mandatory requirement for private negotiation or a formal tender prior to the filing of a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.