Canuto v. Mariano 37Phil. 840

Topic: Parol Evidence Rule

Facts: Espiridiona Canuto executed a Deed of Sale of land in favor of Juan

Mariano reserving the right to repurchase within one year from the date of

sale. One year lapsed and Canuto failed to exercise the right to repurchase.

When Mariano claimed absolute ownership over the land subject of the sale,

Canuto alleged that she be given an extension to repurchase. Canuto claims

that Mariano agreed but the latter failed to appear at the place and time

agreed upon to receive the money for the repurchase and for executing the

necessary Deed of Repurchase. Canuto then filed a case to compel Mariano

to receive the purchase money and execute the necessary documents. To

prove the alleged oral extension of the period to repurchase, one witness

who was alleged to be present when Mariano agreed to extend the time was

presented. The trial court ruled that Canuto may exercise her right to

repurchase. Mariano appealed asking that parol evidence may not be

introduced to prove the alleged extension of time.

Issue: Whether parol evidence may be introduced to prove the alleged

extension of time.

Ruling:Yes, considering the circumstances. Refusal by the vendee of a valid

tender or offer of purchase price in the exercise of the vendor’s right to

repurchase preserves the vendor’s right to repurchase. The defendant

having extended the time within which the plaintiff could repurchase the

land on condition that she would find the money and make repurchase within

the extended period, it is clear that he cannot be permitted to repudiate his

promise, it appearing that the plaintiff stood ready to make the payment

within the extended period, and was only prevented from doing so by the

conduct of the defendant himself. The SC citing the cases of

Rosales vs. Reyes and Ordoveza (25 Phil. Rep., 495),

ruled that that a bona fide offer or tender of the price agreed upon for

the repurchase is sufficient to preserve the rights of the party making it,

without the necessity of making judicial deposit, if the offer or tender is

refused. The case of and in the case of Fructo vs. Fuentes (15 Phil. Rep., 362)

was further cited holding that in such cases when diligent effort is made by

the vendor of the land to exercise the right to repurchase reserved by him in

his deed of sale "and fails by reason of circumstances over which he has no

control, we are of the opinion and so hold that he does not lose his right to

repurchase on the day of maturity."