Conejero v.

CA
16 SCRA 775 (1966)
JBL Reyes, J.
FACTS:
Enrique sold his ½ interest to Raffinan sps and only informed Paz (co-owner) about the sale 1 yr and 4
months later when he showed a copy of the deed to the latter’s husband. Paz tried to redeem on Oct.
4,1952 (P10k check + promise to pay the balance by means of a loan) but the Raffinan sps refused the
offer. CFI declared the plaintiffs Conejero entitled to redeem Enrique's half interest for P34,000. CA
reversed CFI ruling.

ISSUES/HELD/RATIO:

1. W/N Paz T. de Conejero's right to exercise legal redemption has expired – YES.
- Petitioner: no written notice of the sale to the Raffiñans having been given by Enrique Torres to
his sister and co-owner, Paz T. de Conejero, the latter's right to exercise legal redemption has not
expired, in fact, it has not even started to run.
- SC: Yes, notice is indispensable, and that, in view of the terms in which Article 1623 of the
Philippine Civil Code is couched, mere knowledge of the sale, acquired in some other manner by
the redemptioner, does not satisfy the statute
- BUT, Article 1623 does not prescribe any particular form of notice; So long as the latter is
informed in writing of the sale and the particulars thereof, the 30 days for redemption start
running, and the redemptioner has no real cause to complain.
o In this case, the co-owner-vendor, Enrique Torres, showed and gave Enrique Conejero a
copy of the 1951 deed of sale in favor of respondents Raffiñans (equivalent to the giving
of written notice required by law)
o As a necessary consequence, the 30-day period for the legal redemption by co-owner Paz
Torres (retracto de comuneros) began to run its course from and after August 19, 1952,
ending on September 18, of the same year.

2. W/N petitioners effectuated all the steps required for the redemption – NO.
- Petitioners: in legal redemption no tender of the redemption price is required, mere demand to
allow redemption being sufficient to preserve the redemptioner's right.
- SC: agrees with CA that they did not, for they failed to make a valid tender of the price of the sale
paid by the Raffiñans within the period fixed by law. Conejero merely offered a check for
P10,000, which was not even legal tender and which the Raffiñans rejected, in lieu of the price of
P28,000 recited by the deed of sale.

IN SUM:
No redemption as failed to give valid tender during the period. The right to legal redemption is substantial
but exceptional in nature, limited in its duration and subject to strict compliance with the legal
requirements. A bona fide redemption necessarily imports a reasonable and valid tender of the entire
purchase price. The offer of the redemption price isn’t bona fide where it's shown that the offeror couldn't
have made the payment in due time if the offer had been accepted. Here, there was a valid notice of sale
(DoS was shown by vendor + details of the finality of the sale were in writing) hence, the 30 day period
for the redemption began to run on the same day (Aug. 19-1952 – Sept. 18, 1952). There was just refusal
because what was being offered was a check (not legal tender) and a promise to pay in installments
(would extend payment beyond 30 days if allowed). Even if the price is grossly excessive, the remedy of
Art 1620 (lowers to reasonable price) still requires legal tender.

JUDGMENT: CA decision affirmed.