Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    1.4ESTRELLA, v. FRANCISCOt

    Uploaded by

    RayBradleyEduardo
    - Urbano Estrella was the registered agricultural tenant of a parcel of land owned by Cristobal. Cristobal sold the land to Priscilla Francisco without notifying Estrella. - Estrella filed a complaint seeking to legally redeem the property. The PARAD initially recognized Estrella's right to redemption since he wasn't notified of the sale. - However, the DARAB reversed this decision, finding that more than three years had passed between Estrella learning of the sale and filing his case, so his right to redemption had prescribed. - The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while Estrella timely filed his redemption claim, the redemption was ineffective because he failed to validly tender or consign the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    1.4ESTRELLA, v. FRANCISCOt

    Uploaded by

    RayBradleyEduardo
    49 views1 page
    - Urbano Estrella was the registered agricultural tenant of a parcel of land owned by Cristobal. Cristobal sold the land to Priscilla Francisco without notifying Estrella. - Estrella filed a complaint seeking to legally redeem the property. The PARAD initially recognized Estrella's right to redemption since he wasn't notified of the sale. - However, the DARAB reversed this decision, finding that more than three years had passed between Estrella learning of the sale and filing his case, so his right to redemption had prescribed. - The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while Estrella timely filed his redemption claim, the redemption was ineffective because he failed to validly tender or consign the

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Urbano Estrella was the registered agricultural tenant of a parcel of land owned by Cristobal. Cristobal sold the land to Priscilla Francisco without notifying Estrella. - Estrella filed a complaint seeking to legally redeem the property. The PARAD initially recognized Estrella's right to redemption since he wasn't notified of the sale. - However, the DARAB reversed this decision, finding that more than three years had passed between Estrella learning of the sale and filing his case, so his right to redemption had prescribed. - The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while Estrella timely filed his redemption claim, the redemption was ineffective because he failed to validly tender or consign the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    49 views1 page

    1.4ESTRELLA, v. FRANCISCOt

    Uploaded by

    RayBradleyEduardo
    - Urbano Estrella was the registered agricultural tenant of a parcel of land owned by Cristobal. Cristobal sold the land to Priscilla Francisco without notifying Estrella. - Estrella filed a complaint seeking to legally redeem the property. The PARAD initially recognized Estrella's right to redemption since he wasn't notified of the sale. - However, the DARAB reversed this decision, finding that more than three years had passed between Estrella learning of the sale and filing his case, so his right to redemption had prescribed. - The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while Estrella timely filed his redemption claim, the redemption was ineffective because he failed to validly tender or consign the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    URBANO F.

    ESTRELLA
    V.
    PRISCILLA P. FRANCISCO
    Cristobal was the owner of a parcel of Riceland. Estrella was the registered agricultural
    tenant-lessee of the subject landholding. On Sept 1997, Cristobal sold the landholding to the
    respondent without notifying Estrella. Upon discovering the sale, Estrella sent a demand letter
    dated March 31, 1998, for the return of the subject landholding. He also sent Francisco a similar
    demand letter dated July 31, 1998. Neither Cristobal nor Francisco responded to Estrella's
    demands.
    On February 12, 2001, Estrella filed a complaint against Cristobal and Francisco for legal
    redemption, recovery, and maintenance of peaceful possession before the Office of the
    Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD).

    Estrella alleged that the sale between Cristobal and Francisco was made secretly and in bad faith,
    in violation of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 3844, the Agricultural Land Reform Code (the Code). He
    insisted that he never waived his rights as a registered tenant over the property and that he was
    willing to match the sale price. Estrella concluded that as the registered tenant, he is entitled to
    legally redeem the property from Francisco. He also manifested his ability and willingness to
    deposit the amount of P500,000.00 with the PARAD as the redemption price.

    PARAD (Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator) rendered its decision recognizing Estrella's
    right of redemption. The PARAD found that neither Cristobal nor Francisco notified Estrella in
    writing of the sale. In the absence of such notice, an agricultural lessee has a right to redeem the
    landholding from the buyer pursuant to Section 12 of the Code.

    DARAB (Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication) reversed the PARAD's decision and
    denied Estrella the right of redemption. Citing Section 12 of the Code as amended, the DARAB
    held that the right of redemption may be exercised within 180 days from written notice of the
    sale. Considering that more than three years had lapsed between Estrella's discovery of the sale
    and his filing of the case for redemption, the DARAB concluded that Estrella slept on his rights
    and lost the right to redeem the landholding.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the right of redemption of the petitioner has prescribed when neither the lessor-
    seller nor the buyer has given him written notice of the sale.
    Ruling:
    Yes. Because Francisco failed to serve Estrella written notice of the sale, Estrella's 180-
    day redemption period was intact when he filed the complaint before the PARAD. The filing of
    the complaint prevented the running of the (180 day) prescription period and gave Estrella time
    to cure the defect of his redemption through consignment of the redemption price.
    However, after the lapse of sixty days (Any petition or request for redemption shall be
    resolved within sixty days from the filing thereof; otherwise, the said period shall start to run
    again), Estrella's 180-day redemption period began running pursuant to Section 12 of the Code.
    Nevertheless, Estrella could still have consigned payment within this 180-day period.
    Unfortunately, even after the lapse of the 240 days (the 60-day freeze period and the 180-day
    redemption period), there was neither tender nor judicial consignation of the redemption price
    (Basbas v. Entena: valid exercise of the right of redemption requires either tender of the purchase
    price or valid consignation thereof in Court.) Even though Estrella repeatedly manifested his
    willingness to consign the redemption price, he never actually did.
    While Estrella exercised his right of redemption in a timely manner, the redemption was
    ineffective because he failed to exercise this right in accordance with the law.

    You might also like