G.R. No. L-6591, October 24, 1911
JUAN RETES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DAMASO SUELTO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On March 16, 1904, plaintiff Juan Retes borrowed P408 from defendant Damaso Suelto. To secure the loan, Retes mortgaged five parcels of land to Suelto under a pacto de retro (sale with right to repurchase). The agreement stipulated that Suelto would gather all fruits from the land until Retes repaid the debt, with repayment allowed only between one and four years from the date of the contract, and both parties would share the land taxes equally until full payment. On February 24, 1908, Retes went to Suelto’s house to repay the P408 and reclaim the land, but Suelto refused. Retes then made a judicial offer of payment before the justice of the peace on March 5, 1908, tendering the amount in cash. When Suelto again refused, the justice ordered Retes to deposit the money with the municipal president, Felipe Remollo, to be held for Suelto’s benefit. Despite this, Suelto continued to possess the land and harvest its crops. Retes filed an action to recover possession of the land and damages for unlawful detention.

ISSUE

Whether Retes, having made a valid tender of payment within the stipulated period, is entitled to recover possession of the mortgaged land and damages for its unlawful detention by Suelto.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, ordering Suelto to return possession of the land to Retes and pay P500 as damages representing the value of crops harvested after the valid tender of payment. The Court held that Retes performed all acts required by law to exercise his right of repurchase under the pacto de retro. By making a bona fide offer to repay the debt within the agreed period and tendering the full amountfirst personally, then judiciallyRetes preserved his right to reclaim the property. Suelto’s refusal to accept payment did not defeat Retes’ right; the judicial tender and deposit of the money with a third party (Remollo) constituted valid payment, entitling Retes to possession from that date. Suelto’s subsequent retention of the land and harvesting of crops constituted unlawful detention, justifying the award of damages. The P408 deposited with Remollo remained available for Suelto to collect.