- There is no prescribed form for an offer to redeem the property to be effected.
2. The following are the requisites to effect legal redemption under Article 1623 of the Civil Code:
“From the above provisions, the following are the requisites for the exercise of legal redemption: (1) There must be a co-ownership; (2) one of the co-owners sold his right to a stranger; (3) the sale was made before the partition of the co-owned property; (4) the right of redemption must be exercised by one or more co-owners within a period of thirty days to be counted from the time that he or they were notified in writing by the vendee or by the co-owner vendor; and (5) the vendee must be reimbursed for the price of the sale.” (Aguilar vs. Aguilar, G.R. No. 141613 December 16, 2005).
3. The rules on redemption by a mortgagor apply to redemption by a co-owner.
“The doctrine in Tolentino, Tioseco and Belisario cases was jettisoned by the Court of Appeals on the ground that they do not involve legal redemption by a co-owner but by a mortgagor. It concluded that the application of the rules on legal redemption by a co-owner differs from the legal redemption by a mortgagor. But the law does not distinguish; neither should we. For sure, the principle in the aforecited cases is applicable regardless of whether the redemptioner is a co-owner or a mortgagor. Public policy favors redemption regardless of whether the redemptioner is a co-owner or mortgagor, although perhaps with unequal force and effect since each is given a fixed but different period.” (Lee Chuy Realty vs. CA, G.R. No. 104114 December 4, 1995).
4. Redemption within the period allowed by law is not a matter of intent but a question of payment or valid tender of the full redemption price within said period.
“The general rule in redemption is that it is not sufficient that a person offering to redeem manifests his desire to do so. The statement of intention must be accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of payment. This constitutes the exercise of the right to repurchase.
In several cases decided by the Court where the right to repurchase was held to have been properly exercised, there was an unequivocal tender of payment for the full amount of the repurchase price. Otherwise, the offer to redeem is ineffectual.
xxx
Consequently, in this case, the offer by respondents on July 24, 1986 to redeem the foreclosed properties for P1,872,935 and the subsequent consignation in court of P1,500,000 on August 27, 1986, while made within the period of redemption, was ineffective since the amount offered and actually consigned not only did not include the interest but was in fact also way below the P2,782,554.66 paid by the highest bidder/purchaser of the properties during the auction sale.” (BPI vs. Veloso, G.R. No. 141974. August 9, 2004)
5. Requisites for a valid consignation:
“In order that consignation may be effective the debtor must show that (a) there was a debt due; (b) the consignation of the obligation had been made because the creditor to whom a valid tender of payment was made refused to accept it; (c) previous notice of the consignation had been given to the person interested in the performance of the obligation; (d) the amount due was placed at the disposal of the court; and, (e) after the consignation had been made the person interested was notified thereof.” (Rayos vs. Reyes G.R. No. 150913. February 20, 2003.)
6. Mere offer of redemption without consignation/judicial deposit is sufficient to preserve the right of redemption IF the offer is refused.
“the settled rule in this jurisdiction is that 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”. (Dela Cruz vs. Resurreccion G.R. No. L-9304 April 28, 1956).