Facts: 

Spouses Bautista mortaged their lot to Spouses Soriano for the amount of P1,800. The contract stipulates that if the financial condition of the mortgagees will permit, they may purchase said land absolutely on any date within the two-year term of the mortgage at the agreed price of P3,900.00. Pursuant to said provision, Spouses Soriano decided to purchase the lot. Spouses Bautista, however, refused to comply with the demand. 

Spouses Soriano, thus, filed a case, praying that they be allowed to consign or deposit with the Clerk of Court the balance of the purchase price of the land in question and that after due hearing, judgment be rendered ordering defendants to execute an absolute deed of sale of said property in their favor, plus damages.

Spouses Bautista subsequenlty filed a case against Soriano, asking the court to order the latter to accept the payment of the principal obligation and release the mortgage. Spouses Bautista contended that being mortgagors, they can not be deprived of the right to redeem the mortgaged property, because such right is inherent in and inseparable from this kind of contract. 

After a joint trial of both cases, the trial court ordered Spouses Bautista to execute a deed of sale in favor of Spouses Soriano upon payment by the latter of the balance of the price agreed upon. 

Issue: 

May Spouses Bautista redeem the subject property?

Held: 

No. While the transaction is undoubtedly a mortgage and contains the customary stipulation concerning redemption, it carries the added special provision, which renders the mortgagors' right to redeem defeasible at the election of the mortgagees. There is nothing illegal or immoral in this. It is simply an option to buy, sanctioned by Article 1479 of the Civil Code, which states: "A promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is reciprocally demandable. An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price."

In this case the mortgagor's promise to sell is supported by the same consideration as that of the mortgage itself, which is distinct from that which would support the sale, an additional amount having been agreed upon to make up the entire price of P3,900.00, should the option be exercised. The mortgagors' promise was in the nature of a continuing offer, non-withdrawable during a period of two years, which upon acceptance by the mortgagees gave rise to a perfected contract of purchase and sale. 

Spouses Bautista's tender was ineffective for the purpose intended. It was made after the option to purchase had been exercised by Spouses Soriano. Spouses Bautista's right to redeem is defeated by Spouses Soriano's preemptive right to purchase. (Soriano vs Bautista, G.R. No. L-15752, December 29, 1962)