AMADO WENCESLAO ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. FAUSTINO CALIMON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is a case of a legal redemption sanctioned by the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan, to the effect that the defendant should resell to
the plaintiffs a four-fifth part of a parcel of land situated in the
barrio of Baluarte, municipality of Bulacan, described in the complaint.

Three principal questions are raised by the appellant in his brief, the
first relating to the period of nine days for the redemption, the
second to the price of the repurchase, and the third to the capacity of
the redeemers.

As to the first point, even supposing the
nine days fixed by article 1524 of the Civil Code to have expired,
which is not the case, the provision applicable here is that contained
in article 1067, as the matter concerns heirs and an inheritance not
yet distributed, according to the stipulation of facts. But even
considering article 1524 to be applicable, the fact is that the
plaintiffs are minors and have no legal guardian. The period fixed in
said article could not have run against them. Contra non valentem agere non currit praescriptio.
This principle is recognized in our substantive law and is expressly
enshrined by sections 42 and 45 of our Code of Civil Procedure.

With regard to the price, the evidence and circumstances of the case
sufficiently show that the defendant did not pay but P7,700 and a note
for P5,000, the effectiveness of which depends upon the said
defendant’s taking possession of the land.

The evidence does
not establish that this action was brought on behalf of Anselmo
Hilario. The admission of the affidavit Exhibit A does not constitute
any error. Those who have signed it have testified in court against
what they had stated in said document (section 343, Code of Civil
Procedure).

It is no obstacle to the upholding of the right
of redemption that the redeemers have no money to make the redemption.
The lack of funds may render such a right inefficacious, but does not
affect its existence. The plaintiffs cannot exercise such right unless
they reimburse the purchaser with the purchase price paid by him
(article 1067, Civil Code).

As to the offer to redeem made
by Urbano Wenceslao on behalf of his children, the herein plaintiffs,
we think it is valid. He is the natural guardian of his children whom
he represents in court and out of court. Such an offer was not an act
of administration of property but of representation of his children in
their rights.

We find in the proceeding no sufficient ground
for altering the judgment appealed from; wherefore the same is hereby
affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So
ordered.

Johnson, Street, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.