Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > September 1915 Decisions > G.R. No. 9785 September 24, 1915 - ISABELA BANDONG, ET AL v. ALEJANDRA AUSTRIA

031 Phil 479:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 9785. September 24, 1915. ]

ISABELA BANDONG and JUAN FERRER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALEJANDRA AUSTRIA, Defendant-Appellee.

Sisenando Palarca for Appellants.

Hilarion Magno for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PACTO DE RETRO; CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT; REDEMPTION PERIOD. — A provision in a written contract for the sale of land reserving a right. to repurchase, authorizing the vendors to repurchase this land at a stipulated price "in the month of March of any year, should they repurchase (en el mes de marzo de cualquier ano, si recompramos)," held to be an express stipulation giving to the vendors the right to repurchase in the month of March of any year after the date of the contract, which they might elect for that purpose.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ARTICLE 1508, CIVIL CODE. — Held: That the statutory limitation of the exercise of the right of repurchase to a period of four years set forth in the first paragraph of article 1508 of the Civil Code is not applicable to the right thus reserved by the vendors, that limitation being applicable only in the absence of an express agreement" touching the time within which a right; to repurchase may be exercised in such cases.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — The only statutory limitation upon the vendors’ right to repurchase in the case under consideration is that found in the second paragraph of article 1508, which provides that "in case of stipulation, the period of redemption shall not exceed ten years."


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


On the 29th of April, 1905, the plaintiffs in this action sold to Antonio Ventenilla, since deceased, a parcel of land for the sum of P350, expressly reserving a right to repurchase under and in accordance with the terms of the deed of sale.

The written contract contained the following stipulation: "Tambien hacemos constar que una de las promesas que tenemos a D. Antonio que recompraremos este terreno en el mismo precio sin acordarse uno y otro del interes del dinero ni del producto del terreno, pero en el mes de marzo de cualquier ano, si recompramos. (We also set forth that one of the promises we have made to Don Antonio is that we will repurchase this land at the same price; neither of us make any stipulation as to interest on the money or the products of the land, but in the month of March of any year, if we repurchase.)"

The vendors offered to repurchase in the month of March, 1913, but this offer was declined on the ground that the right to repurchase had prescribed: a contention which is renewed by the defendant in this action, who is the widow of original vendee, deriving title through him.

The court below was of opinion that the right to repurchase expired at the end of four years from the date of the contract, relying in support of this ruling on the provisions of article 1508 of the Civil Code, which are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The right mentioned in the preceding article (right to repurchase), in the absence of an express agreement, shall last four years counted from the date of the contract.

"In case of stipulation, the period of redemption shall not exceed ten years."cralaw virtua1aw library

We are of opinion, however, that the above cited provision in the written contract was an express agreement between the parties by the terms of which the vendors were given the right to repurchase in the month of March of any year, after the date of the contract (1905), which they might elect for that purpose. In the event that they should assert that right in the month of March of any year after the date of the contract, it could not be said that there was no express agreement between the parties authorizing them so to do. Manifestly, therefore, the statutory limitation upon the right of repurchase to a period of four years is not applicable to the contract under consideration, that limitation being applicable only to cases wherein there is no express agreement touching the date of redemption.

The parties having expressly agreed that the vendors should have the right to repurchase in the month of March of any year after the date of the contract, the only statutory limitation placed upon them in the exercise of that right is the limitation found in the second paragraph of article 1508 of the Civil Code cited above, which limits the power of the vendor even by express agreement, to reserve a right to repurchase for a longer period than ten years. We conclude, therefore, that the provisions of the contract of sale, whereby the parties undertook by express agreement to cure to the vendors a right to repurchase in the month of March of any year after the date of the contract, were valid and binding upon the parties for a period of ten years from the date of the contract but wholly without force and effect thereafter.

It is admitted that the vendors ordered to repurchase the land in question in the month of March, 1913, less than eight years from the date of the contract. This they had a perfect right to do, and the judgment of the trial court which denies their right to enforce the terms of their contract on the ground that the period of redemption had expired by statutory limitation cannot, therefore, be sustained.

The judgment entered in the court below should be and is hereby reversed, without special condemnation of costs in this instance, and the record will be returned to the court below, where judgment will be entered in accordance herewith. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1915 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9236 September 2, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. ALFONSO TAN CHUY HO

    031 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 9612 September 3, 1915 - CONSOLACION JAVELONA Y LOPEZ, ET AL. v. FLORENCIO YULO

    031 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 10001 September 3, 1915 - JOHN NORTHCOTT v. A. . S. CANON, ET AL.

    031 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 10170 September 10, 1915 - JUANA FAJARDO v. AGUADA MAGSACAY

    031 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 9489 September 11, 1915 - PRUDENCIO CHICOTE v. LICERIO ACASIO

    031 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10541 September 11, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN HERMOSILLA

    031 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 10606 September 11, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES VILLANUEVA

    031 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 9195 September 13, 1915 - LEONG GUEN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    031 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. 9233 September 13, 1915 - MANUEL DE LEON v. SANTIAGO GOMEZ

    031 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 10370 September 17, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. NAZARIO PALERMO, ET AL.

    031 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 9063 September 18, 1915 - LIM LA, ET AL v. GABINO QUINTERO

    031 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 10006 September 18, 1915 - YAP KIM CHUAN v. ALFONSO M. TIAOQUI

    031 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 10479 September 21, 1916

    UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO VEGA, ET AL.

    031 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 10315 September 23, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. HUGO OBSENA

    031 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 10326 September 23, 1915 - JOSE DE CASTRO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    031 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 8019 September 24, 1915 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    031 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 8821 September 24, 1915 - BIBIANA ISAAC,ET AL v. FILOMENA PADILLA

    031 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. 9358 September 24, 1915 - BPI v. GREGORIO YULO

    031 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 9785 September 24, 1915 - ISABELA BANDONG, ET AL v. ALEJANDRA AUSTRIA

    031 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 9949 September 24, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. POLICARPO RUELLO

    031 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 10708 September 24, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS LUMANLAN, ET AL.

    031 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 10719 September 24, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO JURADO

    031 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. 10145 September 25, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. SEBASTIAN DE GUZMAN

    031 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. 10715 September 25, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LUCAS DOROJA

    031 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 10287 September 27, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN LIM TIU

    031 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 10331 September 27, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN SILVANO

    031 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 10720 September 28, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO MAUHAY

    031 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. 9181 September 29, 1915 - COSME CASTILLO, ET AL. v. ABRAHAM SEBULLINA, ET AL

    031 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10363 September 29, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL PACIS, ET AL.

    031 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 10365 September 29, 1915 - ILDEFONSO TAMBUNTING v. ARSENIA TAMBUNTING DE OLIVEROS

    031 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 11203 September 29, 1915 - TEODORO R. YANGCO v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    031 Phil 535