Short answer. You must return the original price of the sale — not the property's current market value — plus the expenses of the contract and any other legitimate payments made by reason of the sale, plus the necessary and useful expenses the buyer spent on the thing itself. Tendering less usually fails.
What the law says
The vendor cannot avail himself of the right of repurchase without returning to the vendee the price of the sale
Civil Code, Article 1616 — What the Vendor Must Pay to Repurchase. Read the full provision →
The price, not today's value
The single most common misunderstanding is that repurchase means paying what the land is worth now. It does not. What you return is the price of the sale — the figure in the deed you signed. If land you sold for two hundred thousand pesos has since tripled in value, the buyer cannot demand the higher figure as the condition of your repurchase, and equally you cannot pay less because the market fell. The sale price is the anchor. This is why a pacto de retro deed that understates the true consideration can hurt whichever party the understatement favours later.
The three add-ons
On top of the price the Code adds three items. First, the expenses of the contract — the documentation and closing costs of the sale itself. Second, any other legitimate payments made by reason of the sale, which is broad enough to cover sums the buyer had to lay out because he bought. Third, the necessary and useful expenses made on the thing sold: repairs that preserved it and improvements that genuinely increased its value or productivity. Expenses that were purely for the buyer's pleasure or luxury are not on the list. Keep receipts and demand the buyer's, because these figures are argued item by item.
Tender matters as much as the amount
Getting the amount right is only half the battle. The right of repurchase lives for a limited period, and it is exercised by a real, unconditional offer of the full sum within that period — not by a letter announcing an intention to repurchase someday. A short tender, or one made after the period lapses, can extinguish the right and consolidate ownership in the buyer permanently. If the buyer refuses to accept a correct tender, consignation with the court is the usual protective step. Anyone approaching the end of a repurchase period should be talking to a lawyer weeks before it closes, not after.
Is it really a sale?
Many pacto de retro deeds are, in substance, loans secured by the property. The Civil Code allows a court to treat such a contract as an equitable mortgage when the surrounding facts point that way — an unusually low price, a seller who stays in possession, repeated extensions of the repurchase period, or the buyer receiving what look like interest payments. That recharacterisation changes everything: instead of a repurchase price under Article 1616, you owe the loan and the property answers as security. This is general information, not advice on your documents; the deed itself, and how the parties actually behaved, decide the question.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 117501, July 8, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Anecita Gregorio vs. Maria Crisologo Vda. De Culig, G.R. No. 180559, January 20, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Teofilo and Simeona Rayos and George Rayos vs. Donato Reyes, et al, G.R. No. 150913, February 20, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Dominador R. Narvaez and Lilia W. Narvaez vs. Spouses Rose Ogas Alciso and Antonio Alciso, G.R. No. 165907, July 27, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →