FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242899. April 10, 2019.]
RODOLFO TAN AND ELMA TAN, petitioners, vs.DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ROLANDO L. STA. MARIA, EMMANUEL GARCIA AND MILAGROS GARCIA, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ISABELA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 10, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242899 (Rodolfo Tan and Elma Tan v. Development Bank of the Philippines and Rolando L. Sta. Maria, Emmanuel Garcia and Milagros Garcia, and The Register of Deeds of Isabela) — The petitioners' motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its May 17, 2018 Decision 1 and October 25, 2018 Resolution, 2 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Records show that petitioners not only failed to redeem the property within the one-year redemption period, but they also failed to properly exercise their right to repurchase said property within the five-year period granted by law.
Petitioners insist that they manifested their intention to repurchase the property. However, mere manifestation of intention does not amount to tender of payment that could be considered as a formal offer to redeem. In Spouses Guevarra v. The Commoner Lending Corp., Inc., 3 the Court held that the filing of a judicial action for the purpose of tendering the repurchase price within the five-year period under Section 119 4 of the Public Land Act is already equivalent to a formal offer to redeem. 5 Petitioners, however, did not file any action within the said period.
The Court has ruled 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. 6
In sum, the CA correctly affirmed the Regional Trial Court in holding that petitioners no longer had any cause of action to compel the Development Bank of the Philippines to resell the property to them and to accept payment thereof.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The May 17, 2018 Decision and October 25, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 105423 are AFFIRMED. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED." Del Castillo, J., on official business. Jardeleza, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 6-18; penned by Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, concurring.
2. Id. at 19-21.
3. 754 Phil. 292 (2015).
4.Sec. 119. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of five years from the date of the conveyance.
5.Supra note 3 at 299.
6.BPI Family Savings Bank v. Spouses Veloso, 479 Phil. 627, 632 (2004).