SPECIAL THIRTEENTH DIVISION

[CA-G.R. SP No. 39331.  October 25, 1996.]

TEODULA ABAINZA and DIANA J. YAP, petitioners, vs. MARIANO OPIANA, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

LUNA, J p:

This is a petition for review from the decision dated June 28, 1995 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, DARAB Case No. 0904, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated June 9, 1992 of the Hon. Adjudicator for the Province of Sorsogon is hereby AFFIRMED in toto and the appeal is dismissed for lack of merit.

""SO ORDERED."

The complaint dated March, 1991 was filed by respondent Mariano Opiana before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Office, PARAO, Balogo, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, against Teodula Abainza and Diana J. Yap praying for the redemption of a parcel of land with an area of 3.7562 has. situated at Sitio Bariw Cura, Dunsol, Sorsogon, docketed as DARAB Case No. 05-034-S. Abainza filed her answer thereto. The records before this court do not show whether Yap also filed her answer to the complaint.

On June 9, 1992 the Provincial Adjudicator of PARAO rendered a decision, " . . . ordering the petitioner to redeem the property . . . an amount of P3,500.00 from respondent TEODULA ABAINZA.

Teodolo Opiana and Diana J. Yap appealed before the Department of Agrarian Reform adjudication Board on June 28, 1995 the DARAB rendered a decision affirming the decision of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Office in toto.

Hence, this petition for review.

Petitioner raised the following issue of whether or not (1) the redemption is warranted; (2) the redemption price is correct; (3) the DARAB was correct in applying the rules of court in the case; and (4) the DARAB's findings were tainted with grave abuse of discretion, violation of due process, denial of substantial justice and erroneous interpretation of the law.

We find merit in the petition for review. The provincial Adjudicator, on page 1 of his decision, 3rd paragraph, last sentence, stated that " . . Diana Yap . . . manifested that the petitioner could not avail of the right of redemption because the land was first offered to him before the sale", that he also stated the following in the last paragraph, same page: "Assuming arguendo, that the land was first offered for sale to the complaint, yet, there was no showing that the consideration in the offer is the same as that appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale (in the amount of P3,500.00) between Diana Yap and Teodula Abainza."; and that the DARAB, on page 3 of its decision, second paragraph, also stated the following:

"Assuming that indeed, the offer was first made to Complainant-Appellee, yet no evidence was presented that would indicate the offered price of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00). In fact, the offer or notice must be in writing so that the two (2) year-period within the right of redemption can be exercised can start to run."

We find that the findings of the Provincial adjudicator that no prior notice was made by the landowner Yap to the tenant Opiana that she was selling the tenanted property has no factual basis. The tenant Opiana admitted that his landowner offered the property to him for sale. This notice is sufficient for all legal intents and purposes. Indeed, it can also be safely asserted that before the buyer Abainza decided to buy the property, she must have inspected the property, examined the same and must have met the tenant Opiana, talked to each other about the owner's decision to sell the property, her intention to buy the same, and the price demanded by the owner.

There is also no factual basis for the PARAO and the DARAB to use the preparatory statement "assuming arguendo,. . . ." presence of the evidence that the landowner notified the tenant of her intention to sell the property, which is confirmed in the Affidavit of Abainza, that the property was offered to him for sale after it was offered to Opiana, but he "refused to buy the property". This is also expressed in the affidavit of Diana J. Yap, who stated that sometime in 1990, because she needed money, she offered the land to Teresita Opiana, wife of Mariano Opiana, but she said that they are not interested in buying the property because their children are all working in Manila.

Petitioners having clearly shown that the tenanted property was first offered for sale to the tenant and his wife but they did not opt to buy the property, then the landowner should not be faulted for offering and selling the property to Teodula Abainza.

Opiana's complaint for redemption cannot prosper. There are five essential elements that he should comply under Section 12 of RA 3840, as amended, the fifth of which is that there must be an actual tender or valid consignation  of the entire amount which the redemptioner believes to be the reasonable price of the land sought to be redeemed. We examined the evidence inside out and finds that the Opianas did not make an " . . . actual tender or consignation of the entire amount," which they should have consigned with the PARAO and/or DARAB. This is fatal to their quest for redemption. In one case, it was argued that the Court of Agrarian Relations erred in dismissing an action for non-tender of the redemption price, since the law nowhere required such tender, and furthermore, the tenant is not bound to redeem his landholding at the price and consideration. Torres de Conjero, et al. vs. CA, et al., 16 SCRA 775, ruled that the timely exercise of the price or valid consignation thereof. The High Court, elaborating on the point in the motion for reconsideration: " . . . WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS EXERCISED DILIGENCE IN ASSERTING THEIR WILLINGNESS TO PAY IS IRRELEVANT. REDEMPTION BY THE OWNERS OR THE VENDOR WITHIN 30 DAYS IS NOT A MATTER OF INTENT BUT IS EFFECTUATED ONLY IN PAYMENT OR VALID TENDER OF THE PRICE WITHIN SAID PERIOD. HOW THE REDEMPTIONERS RAISE THE MONEY IS IMMATERIAL; TIMELINESS AND COMPLETENESS OF PAYMENT OR TENDER ARE THE THINGS THAT MATTER." (28 SCRA 671; see also Basbas vs. Entena, June 30, 1969, reiterated in Almeda vs. CA, 78 SCRA 199).

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby GRANTED. The decision dated June 28, 1995 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. And the Complaint for Redemption filed by Mariano Opiana is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

               Adefuin-dela Cruz and Alino-Hormachuelos, JJ., concur.