ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 10978   March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO<br /><br />034 Phil 325

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10978. March 22, 1916. ]

    SIXTO MANLAGNIT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO, Defendant-Appellant.

    Manly, Goddard & Lockwood for Appellant.

    Salvador E. Imperial for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CONTRACTS; CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION; "PACTO DE RETRO" OR PLEDGE TO SECURE REPAYMENT OR MONEY. — Where an instrument contains words usually found in a sale with a right to repurchase but also contains other words and expressions not usually found in instruments known as sales with right to repurchase but rather in those executed as security for the payment of a debt and the acts of the parties during the existence of the contract between them were such as to demonstrate that they regarded the instrument in question as one given to secure the payment of a loan, said instrument will be interpreted by the court not as a sale with the right to repurchase, but as an instrument executed for the purpose of securing the payment of money.

    2. "PACTO DE RETRO" ; TRANSFER OF TITLE AND POSSESSION. — In sales with the right to repurchase the title to the property passes immediately and the possession thereof is changed from the vendor to the vendee.

    3. ED.; EFFECT ON RELATIONS OF PARTIES. — If at the time of the sale with the right to repurchase, the relation of debtor and creditor exists between the parties, that relation instantly ceases on the execution and delivery of the conveyance and they assume the relation of vendor and vendee. In such cases the creditor ceases to be creditor and becomes the owner of the land, while the debtor ceases to be a debtor and becomes a person who has the right to defeat the conveyance on or before a given date by the payment of a specified sum of money.

    4. ID.; ID, — While in certain respects a sale with the right to repurchase may be considered a security and may have been executed for the purpose of obtaining a loan of money the legal effect thereof is to destroy the relation of debtor and creditor and to create that of vendor and vendee.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORELAND, J. :


    This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Albay, rendered in an action to obtain a declaration that the plaintiff has a right to redeem the lands described in the complaint on the payment to the defendant of P200 with damages and costs.

    On the 19th of September, 1913, plaintiff and defendant executed a document in the following words:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "I, Sixto Manlagnit, married, of full age and a resident of Oas, Albay, P. I., by these presents declare that on his day I have received from the Chinaman Alfonso Sanches the sum of P200, Philippine currency, and in consideration of said Chinaman Alfonso Sanchez, widower, of full age and a resident of Oas, Albay, P. I., with an area of about one thousand topones which is equal to about 4 hectares, 47 ares and 00 centares, bounded on the north by the Caluiton creek, on the east by Silvino Quintano, on the south by Juan Marcella and on the west by Juan Marcella.

    "I further declare that if I, the debtor, fully pay the said sum of P200 to my creditor within six months from this date this writing shall be null and void, but in contrary case, it shall remain in full force and vigor, my creditor Alfonso Sanchez being thereby authorized to take possession of the land without hindrance.

    "I further declare that my creditor Alfonso Sanchez shall have the right to cultivate said land during the existence of said mortgage and I agree with my said creditor that he is the owner of the property free and clear, . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The only point raised or discussed in this case is whether or not the document above set out is a sale with a right to repurchase or was intended to be a simple security for the payment of the debt therein referred to. The debtor permitted the six months specified in the contract to expire without having paid the P200; and, as a necessary legal result, defendant become the absolute owner thereof if the document was a sale with a right to purchase. The learned trial court found that the document was not a sale with a right to repurchase, but was an instrument in the nature of security for the payment of a debt and he accordingly found that, although the time for the payment had expired, the defendant did not become thereupon the owner of the land but that plaintiff was entitled to pay the debt and to have the instrument in question canceled.

    We agree with the conclusion of the trial court. While the instrument contains words usually found in a sale with a right to repurchase, it contains also other words and expressions not usually found in sales with a right to repurchase but in instruments executed as security for the payment of a debt. The word "mortgage" appears in the instrument and the word "debtor" is used several times therein. Furthermore, the acts of the parties themselves show that they considered the instrument one of security rather than a sale with a right to repurchase. In sales with right to repurchase the title to the property passes immediately and the possession thereof is changed from the vendor to the vendee. If, at the time of the sale with a right to repurchase, the relation of debtor and creditor exists between the vendor and the vendee, that relation instantly ceases on the execution and delivery of the conveyance. Then the creditor ceases to be creditor and becomes the owner of the land, while the debtor ceases to be a debtor and becomes simply a person who has the right to defeat the conveyance on or before a given day. While in certain respects a sale with a right to repurchase may be considered a security and may have been executed for the purpose of obtaining a loan of money, the legal effect thereof is to destroy the relation of debtor and creditor and to create that of vendor and vendee, giving to the debtor the tight to defeat the conveyance, that is, repurchase, within a specified time. In the case before us it is clear that the parties maintained the relation of debtor and creditor. The instrument itself indicates that was their intention; and their acts subsequent to the execution of the instrument show clearly the same intention. The plaintiff remained in possession of the land. The defendant was given the right, which he duly exercised, of going upon the land and harvesting the crops; but the crops so harvested were to be used by the defendant in reducing plaintiff’s debt to him. These facts show an intention to maintain the relation of debtor and creditor and not to create that of vendor and vendee.

    We are of the opinion, therefore, that the plaintiff had the right to tender to defendant his debt with interest to the date of the tender and to have a cancellation of the instrument in question.

    The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, but no costs shall be taxed either in the court below or in this court. So ordered.

    Torres, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur

    Johnson, J., concurs in the result.

    G.R. No. 10978   March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO<br /><br />034 Phil 325




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED