Percelino Diamante v. Hon. Court of Appeals

Summary

This case involves a dispute over a fishpond lease agreement and the validity of an option to repurchase. Diamante sold his fishpond rights to Deypalubos, who later granted him an option to repurchase. When Deypalubos applied for a fishpond lease, he disclosed the sale but not the option. The DANR Secretary cancelled the lease for misrepresentation, but the Supreme Court reinstated it, ruling that the option was merely a promise to sell under Article 1479 of the Civil Code, not conventional redemption under Article 1601. Since the promise lacked proper acceptance and separate consideration, it was not binding on Deypalubos. The Court emphasized that rights of repurchase must be reserved in the original sale contract, not granted in subsequent instruments. The decision clarifies the distinction between conventional redemption and promises to sell in property transactions.