8/29/2019 G.R. No. L-26255 June 30, 1969 - PABLO BASBAS v. RUFINO ENTENA, ET AL.

ET AL. : JUNE 1969 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDEN…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > June 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-26255 June 30, 1969 -
PABLO BASBAS v. RUFINO ENTENA, ET AL.:

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-26255. June 30, 1969.]

PABLO BASBAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RUFINO ENTENA, FLAVIANO TIBAY and ANGELINA

ENTENA (Spouses), and R. M. RESURRECCION as acting Registrar of Deeds of the Province of
Laguna, Defendants-Appellees.

Sabio, Bonifacio & De Jesus, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Domingo T. Zaballa for Defendants-Appellees.

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE; RIGHT OF LEGAL
REDEMPTION; TENDER OR CONSIGNATION OF THE PRICE REQUIRED. — The timely exercise of the right
of legal redemption requires either tender of the price or valid consignation thereof.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PAYMENT OF REASONABLE PRICE NOT OBSTACLE TO REQUIREMENT OF TENDER. —
The right of a redemptioner to pay a reasonable price under Art. 1620 does not excuse him from the duly
to make proper tender of the price that can be honestly deemed reasonable under the circumstances,
without prejudice to final arbitration by the courts; nor does it authorize said redemptioner to demand
that the vendee accept payment by installments.

DebtKollect Company, Inc. 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT TO BE EXERCISED WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME LIMITS. — Both under the Land
Reform Act and Art. 1620 of the Civil Code, the right of legal redemption must be exercised within
specified time limits: and the statutory periods would be rendered meaningless and of easy evasion
unless the redemptioner is required to make an actual tender in good faith of what he believed to be the
reasonable price of the land sought to be redeemed.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR TENDER OR CONSIGNATION AFFORDS AN OPPORTUNITY TO

AVOID LITIGATION. — It may be added that unless tender or consignation is made requisite to the valid
exercise of the tenant’s right to redeem, everytime a redemption is attempted, a case must be filed in
court to ascertain the reasonable price. On the other hand, a prior tender by the tenant of the price that
he considers reasonable affords an opportunity to avoid litigation, for the landowner may well decide to
accept a really reasonable offer, considering that he would thereby save the attorney’s fees and the
expense of protracted litigation.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; RUNNING OF THE REDEMPTION PERIOD NOT DEPENDENT UPON TENANT’S
OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN FUNDS. — There is no expression in the law (R.A. 3844) which indicates, or
even hints, that the 2-year redemption period will not commence to run until the tenant obtains financing
from the Land Bank, or stops the tenant from securing redemption funds from some other source. The
considerations expressed in this decision on the confiscatory result of requiring the landowner to wait an
indefinite time until the lessee acquires the means for making the redemption militate against construing
the statement of purposes for which the Land Bank is created (Sec. 74) as condition precedent to the
ChanRobles Intellectual Property alienation of a landholding.
Division
6. ID.; ID.; LAND BANK; OBJECTIVE. — The Land Bank is intended "to finance the acquisition by the

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1969junedecisions.php?id=245 1/4
8/29/2019 G.R. No. L-26255 June 30, 1969 - PABLO BASBAS v. RUFINO ENTENA, ET AL. : JUNE 1969 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDEN…
June-1969 Jurisprudence                  marked as Exhibit ‘D’.
G.R. No. L-22970 June 9, 1969 - SURIGAO
CONSOLIDATED MINING CO., INC., ET AL. v. PHIL.
LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-30317 June 9, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. FRANCISCO RO. CUPIN, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-23215 June 9, 1969 - SUSANA GALA DE
ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. EL HOGAR FILIPINO
G.R. No. L-26462 June 9, 1969 - TERESITA C.
YAPTINCHAY v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-21025 June 14, 1969 - LIANGA BAY
LOGGING CO., INC. v. NARCISO LANSANG, ET AL.
UDK Administrative Case No. 69-28 June 14, 1969
- PRAXEDES LIMALIMA v. ALBERTO SANJURJO
G.R. No. L-22337 June 14, 1969 - PHIL. TOBACCO
FLUE-CURING AND REDRYING CORP. v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-30306 June 20, 1969 - JOSE C. LUCIANO
v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-28949 June 23, 1969 - JIBIN ARULA v.
ROMEO C. ESPINO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-23675 June 27, 1969 - PHIL. AMERICAN
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA
PORT SERVICE, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-22402 June 30, 1969 - CLEMENTE
ALVIAR v. CESAREO ALVIAR, ET AL.
A.C. No. 840 June 30, 1969 - JOAQUIN G.
GARRIDO, ET AL. v. NORBERTO QUISUMBING
G.R. No. L-23153 June 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JULIO CRISOLOGO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-23922 June 30, 1969 - RAYMUNDO V.
ADLE v. MUNICIPALITY OF LA CASTELLANA, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-24440 June 30, 1969 - PROVINCE OF
ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, ET
AL.
G.R. No. L-24877 June 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO MONGADO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-25401 June 30, 1969 - IN RE: JOSE
MARIA CARLOS TARRAGA BULL ZABALETA v.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. L-25951 June 30, 1969 - FILIPINAS
INVESTMENT & FINANCE CORPORATION v. JULIAN R.
VITUG, JR., ET AL.
G.R. No. L-26255 June 30, 1969 - PABLO BASBAS v.
RUFINO ENTENA, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-26340 June 30, 1969 - JESUS
GANCHERO v. ANACLETO BELLOSILLO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-26397 June 30, 1969 - TOMASA BULOS
VDA. DE TECSON v. VICENTE TECSON, ET AL.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1969junedecisions.php?id=245
Government of landed estates for division and resale to small landholders, as well as the purchase of the
landholding by the agricultural lessee from the landowner."
DECISION
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, in CAR Case No. 1478, Laguna ‘65,
on the sole question of whether tender of payment and judicial consignation of the purchase price are
necessary before a tenant-lessee may avail of the right of pre-emption or of redemption provided in
Sections 11 and 12 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code.
In the action filed by tenant Pablo Basbas in the Court of Agrarian Relations against the alleged
landholder or landholders Rufino Entena and the spouses Flaviano Tibay and Angelina Entena, the parties
agreed to stipulate on the following facts: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"1. That plaintiff Pablo Basbas is the leasehold tenant of a 1- 1/2 hectare parcel of riceland, known as Lot
No. 1520 of the Sta. Rosa Estate Subdivision, located at Barrio Dila, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, formerly owned
by defendant Rufino Entena and presently owned by spouses Flaviano Tibay and Angelina Entena, his co-
defendants.
"2. That on April 11, 1964, defendant Rufino Entena executed a deed of sale of the aforementioned lot in
favor of defendant spouses Flaviano Tibay and Angelina Entena.
"3. That on May 25, 1964, defendant Rufino Entena sent a letter, marked Exhibit ‘I’, to plaintiff, to which
the latter sent a reply dated June 4, 1964, marked as Exhibit ‘A’.
"4. That under date of June 4, 1964, plaintiff wrote a letter, marked Exhibit ‘B’, to the Governor of the
Land Authority, to which he received a reply from the Acting Officer in Charge of the Land Authority,
dated June 22, 1964, which is marked as Exhibit ‘C’, of which reply (Exhibit ‘C’) defendants have not
been given copy or otherwise informed.
"5. That the deed of sale mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, was registered in the office of the register of
deeds of Laguna on May 26, 1964. The certification of the Register of Deeds respecting said sale is
"6. That defendant Rufino Entena and his wife Aniceta Carapatan executed an affidavit, dated April 11,
1964, marked as Exhibit ‘I’ — defendant Register of Deeds.
"7. That defendant spouses Flaviano Tibay and Angelina Entena are son-in-law and daughter,
respectively, of defendant Rufino Entena, and said spouses live separately from their father.
"8. That plaintiff has not deposited any sum of money in this Court to cover the pre-emption or
redemption price." cralaw virtua1aw library
Exhibit "I" mentioned above (No. 3, Stipulation) refers to a letter sent by Rufino Entena to the tenant, to
the effect that the landholding was being put up for sale at P13,000.00 per hectare and the tenant being
given 90 days within which to communicate his intention to purchase the same: otherwise, the land
would be offered to other buyers (page 1, folder of exhibits). Exhibit "A" (No. 3, Stipulation) is the
tenant’s reply to the landholder dated June 4, 1964, accepting the latter’s offer to sell the land, although
disagreeing to the quoted price therefor. The tenant in the same letter informed the landholder that he
was enlisting the aid of the government in purchasing the land, as allowed by law. Exhibit "3" (No. 4,
Stipulation) is the tenant’s letter of June 4, 1964 addressed to the Governor of the Land Authority, asking
the help of said agency to acquire the land he was working on and which was being offered for sale.
Exhibit "C" (No. 4, Stipulation) is the answer of the Acting Officer in Charge of the Land Authority,
informing the tenant that his petition was already being processed and definite action thereon will be
taken as soon as the Land Bank shall have been fully organized. Exhibit "I" -Register of Deeds" (No. 6,
Stipulation) is the sworn affidavit of the spouses Rufino Entena and Aniceta Carapatan, dated April 11,
1964, attesting to the alleged fact that the tenant, Pablo Basbas, was fully notified of the sale of their
land 90 days before said conveyance, and that the tenant had refused, or failed to exercise, the right of
pre-emption granted him under the Agricultural Land Reform Code (page 6, folder of exhibits). The
submission of this affidavit enabled the registration on May 26, 1964 of the deed of sale in favor of
vendees Flaviano Tibay and Angelina Entena.
On the basis of the aforequoted stipulation of facts, the Agrarian Court dismissed the case, reasoning
that as the plaintiff failed to make tender of payment and consignation of the purchase price the
landowner can not be compelled to sell the property to him. Plaintiff-tenant thus interposed the present
appeal.
The appellant-tenant’s claim to preference in purchasing the land he is working on, in case the said land
is to be sold, or to his right to redeem it in 2 years should the land be sold without his knowledge, is
predicated upon Sections 11 and 12 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code (Republic Act 3844): jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SEC. 11. Lessee’s Right of Pre-emption.—In case the agricultural lessor decides to sell the landholding,
the agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy the same under reasonable terms and
conditions: Provided, That the entire landholding offered for sale must be pre-empted by the Land
Authority if the owner so desires unless the majority of the lessees object to such acquisition: Provided,
further, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said preferential
right only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of pre-emption under this section
may be exercised within ninety days from notice in writing, which shall be served by the owner on all
lessees affected."cralaw virtua1aw library
"SEC. 12. Lessee’s Right of Redemption.—In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the
knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable
price and consideration: Provided, That the entire landholding sold must be redeemed; Provided, further,
That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption
only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may
be exercised within two years from the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other
right of legal redemption." cralaw virtua1aw library
The case herein, which positively is an exercise by the tenant of his right to redeem the landholding, 1
was nevertheless dismissed, the Agrarian Court considering as fatal the tenant’s failure to tender
payment or consign the purchase price of the property.
It is argued for the appellant-lessee that the Court of Agrarian Relations erred in dismissing the action for
non-tender of the redemption price, since the law nowhere requires such tender, and, furthermore, the
tenant is not bound to redeem his landholding at the price for which it was sold, but only at a reasonable
price and consideration.
We find that no error was committed in dismissing the case. In the first place, there is no showing that
2/4
8/29/2019 G.R. No. L-26255 June 30, 1969 - PABLO BASBAS v. RUFINO ENTENA, ET AL. : JUNE 1969 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDEN…
G.R. No. L-26601 June 30, 1969 - IN RE: LIM
SIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. L-22481 June 30, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC.
G.R. No. L-22608 June 30, 1969 - MACKAY RADIO
& TELEGRAPH CO., INC. v. JOHN W. RICH
the Land Reform Council has proclaimed that the government machineries and agencies in the region are
already operating, as required by Section 4 of Republic Act 3844.
In the second place, granting that Sections 11 and 12 are operative, yet in Torres de Conejero, Et. Al. v.
Court of Appeals, Et Al., L-21812, April 29, 1966, 16 SCRA 775, this Court ruled that the timely exercise
of the right of legal redemption requires either tender of the price or valid consignation thereof. Said the
Court in said case (16 SCRA, pages 781-782): jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

G.R. No. L-22988 June 30, 1969 - FERMIN SARE v. "It is not difficult to discern why the redemption price should either be fully offered in legal tender or else
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS validly consigned in court. Only by such means can the buyer become certain that the offer to redeem is
one made seriously and in good faith. A buyer can not be expected to entertain an offer of redemption
G.R. No. L-27232 June 30, 1969 - BELEN CRUZ v. without attendant evidence that the redemptioner can, and is willing to accomplish the repurchase
EXEQUIEL CASTILLO immediately. A different rule would leave the buyer open to harassment by speculators or crackpots, as
well as to unnecessary prolongation of the redemption period, contrary to the policy of the law. While
G.R. No. L-27346 June 30, 1969 - ANATOLIO consignation of the tendered price is not always necessary because legal redemption is not made to
VALENCIA v. MANILA YACHT CLUB, INC. discharge a pre-existing debt (Asturias Sugar Central v. Cane Molasses Cc., 60 Phil. 253), a valid tender
is indispensable, for the reasons already stated. Of course, consignation of the price would remove all
G.R. No. L-27441 June 30, 1969 - GERMAN E.
controversy as to the redemptioner’s ability to pay at the proper time."
VILLANUEVA v. NATIONAL MARKETING
cralaw virtua1aw library

CORPORATION
This Court further elaborated the point in its ruling on the motion to reconsider in the Torres case (16
G.R. No. L-29328 June 30, 1969 - SY OH v. SCRA, pages 783-784): jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL.

"3. Whether or not the petitioners exercised diligence in asserting their willingness to pay is irrelevant.
G.R. No. L-26706 June 30, 1969 - IN RE: YU CHUAN Redemption by the co-owners of the vendor within 30 days is not a matter of intent, but is effectuated
v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. only by payment, or valid tender, of the price within said period. How the redemptioners raise the money
is immaterial; timeliness and completeness of payment or tender are the things that matter.
G.R. No. L-26776 June 30, 1969 - DANIEL MANALO,
ET AL. v. PAMPANGA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT "4. The offer of the redemption price is not bona fide where it is shown that the offerer could not have
COMPANY, INC.
made payment in due time if the offer had been accepted. Note that the co-owner’s right to redeem,
being granted by law, is binding on the purchaser of the undivided share by operation of law, and the
latter’s consent or acceptance is not required for the existence of the right of redemption. The only
matter to be investigated by the courts, therefore, is the timely exercise of the right, and the only way to
exercise it is by a valid payment or tender within the 30 days prefixed by the Civil Code." cralaw virtua1aw library

That the legal redemptioner is only required to pay a reasonable price is no obstacle to the requirement
of tender, as ruled also in the Torres case (16 SCRA, page 781): jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is, likewise, argued that tender of the price is excused because Article 1620 of the new Civil Code
allows the redemptioner to pay only a reasonable price if the price of alienation is grossly excessive, and
that the reasonableness of the price to be paid can only be determined by the courts. We think that the
right of a redemptioner to pay a reasonable price under Article 1620 does not excuse him from the duty
to make proper tender of the price that can be honestly deemed reasonable under the circumstances,
without prejudice to final arbitration by the courts; nor does it authorize said redemptioner to demand
that the vendee accept payment by installments, as petitioners have sought to do." cralaw virtua1aw library

In our opinion, the foregoing considerations are applicable to redemption (and pre-emption) under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Land Reform Act. Both under said law and under Article 1620 of the Civil Code,
the right of legal redemption must be exercised within specified time limits: and the statutory periods
would be rendered meaningless and of easy evasion unless the redemptioner is required to make an
actual tender in good faith of what he believed to be reasonable price of the land sought to be redeemed.
The existence of the right of redemption operates to depress the market value of the land until the period
expires, and to render that period indefinite by permitting the tenant to file a suit for redemption, with
either party unable to foresee when final judgment will terminate the action, would render nugatory the
period of two years fixed by the statute for making the redemption and virtually paralyze any efforts of
the landowner to realize the value of his land. No buyer can be expected to acquire it without any
certainty as to the amount for which it may be redeemed, so that he can recover at least his investment
in case of redemption. In the meantime, the landowner’s needs and obligations can not be met. It is
doubtful if any such result was intended by the statute, absent clear wording to that effect.

The situation becomes worse when, as shown by the evidence in this case, the redemptioner has no
funds and must apply for them to the Land Authority, which, in turn, must depend on the availability of
funds from the Land Bank. It then becomes practically certain that the landowner will not be able to
realize the value of his property for an indefinite time beyond the two years redemption period.

The appellant herein, like the appellants in the Torres case, urge that this Court has ruled that previous
tender of the redemption money is not indispensable in De la Cruz v. Marcelino, 84 Phil. 709, and Torio v.
Del Rosario, 93 Phil. 800. It was, however, pointed out in the Torres decision that in the two cases relied
upon by appellant the redemptioners had consigned or deposited in court the redemption price when
action was filed, for which reason prior tender was held excused. In the case now before us, there was
neither prior tender nor did judicial consignation accompany the filing of the suit. Furthermore, in the
cases aforesaid, the Court took into account the brevity of the periods (9 days) allowed by the law
operating at the time (Civil Code of 1889); in the case at bar, the statute grants the tenant two years to
redeem.

It may be added that unless tender or consignation is made requisite to the valid exercise of the tenant’s
right to redeem, everytime a redemption is attempted, a case must be filed in court to ascertain the
reasonable price. On the other hand, a prior tender by the tenant of the price that he considers
reasonable affords an opportunity to avoid litigation, for the landowner may well decide to accept a really
reasonable offer, considering that he would thereby save the attorney’s fees and the expense of
protracted litigation.

Section 74 of the Land Reform Act (Republic Act No. 3844) establishes a "Land Bank of the Philippines"
intended ‘to finance the acquisition by the Government of landed estates for division and resale to small
landholders, as well as the purchase of the landholding by the agricultural lessee from the landowner."
No expression in this part of the law, however, indicates, or even hints, that the 2-year redemption
period will not commence to run until the tenant obtains financing from the Land Bank, or stops the
tenant from securing redemption funds from some other source. The considerations expressed in this
decision on the confiscatory result of requiring the landowner to wait an indefinite time until the lessee
acquires the means for making the redemption militate against construing the statement of purposes for
which the Land Bank is created (Section 74) as condition precedent to the alienation of a landholding.

WHEREFORE, the appealed order granting the motion to dismiss the complaint is affirmed. No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo,
JJ., concur.

Dizon, J., took no part.

Endnotes:

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1969junedecisions.php?id=245 3/4
8/29/2019 G.R. No. L-26255 June 30, 1969 - PABLO BASBAS v. RUFINO ENTENA, ET AL. : JUNE 1969 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDEN…

1. When the tenant was notified on May 25, 1964 that the landholding was for sale, the
same property was already conveyed in favor of the spouses Flaviano Tibay and Angelina
Entena.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

 Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1969junedecisions.php?id=245 4/4