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
 

   
June-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47032 June 6, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JOSE MIRANDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 222

  • G.R. Nos. 47038, 47039 & 47040 June 6 1941

    LUIS R. PIMENTEL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 47260 June 6, 1941 - BISHOP OF NUEVA CACERES v. EUGENIA M. SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 47454 June 6, 1941 - ADRIANO TRINIDAD v. ANDRES S. SIOCHI, ET AL.

    072 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 47317 June 10, 1941 - SISENANDO ABARRO v. TOMASA DE GUIA

    072 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 47519 June 10, 1941 - EMILIANO E. GARCIA v. PAZ E. VELASCO

    072 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 47549 June 10, 1941 - J. BENTON CLAUSEN v. ISABEL CABRERA

    072 Phil 252

  • G.R. Nos. 47646 & 47657 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO BALTAZAR v. ANDRES LAYUG, ET AL.

    072 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 47684 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO A. MANEJA

    072 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. 47686 June 10, 1941 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO SANDIKO

    072 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 47689 June 10, 1941 - WILFRIDO MACEDA, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 47694 June 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO CALDITO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 47756 June 10, 1941 - LUIS OCAMPO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    072 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. 47762 June 10, 1941 - SILVERIO MORCO v. SALVADOR MUÑOZ

    072 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 47764 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCO V. VILLARICA v. CONCEPCION MANIKIS

    072 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 47770 June 10, 1941 - SILVESTRE GALLANO v. PABLO S. RIVERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 47780 June 10, 1941 - CIRILO ALAFRIZ v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 47789 June 10, 1941 - FE CASTRO DE AGBAYANI v. JUSTICE OF PEACE OF THE CAPITAL OF ILOCOS NORTE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 47816 June 10, 1941 - SABINO AGUILOS v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 47862 June 10, 1941 - FRANCISCA SIMON v. SINFOROSO TAGOC

    072 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 47863 June 10, 1941 - JOSE H. JUNQUERA v. JOSE VAÑO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 47892 June 10, 1941 - PABLO VALENZUELA v. VALERIO FLORES, ET AL.

    072 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 48027 June 10, 1941 - EL INTESTADO DE BENITO VALDEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE ALBERT, ET AL.

    072 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 47421 June 13, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE NUEVA ECIJA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 47734 June 13, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. CORNELIO PINEDA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 47738 June 13, 1941 - ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 47799 June 13, 1941 - ELEUTERIO NERI, ET AL. v. IGNACIA AKUTIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 47965 June 13, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. MARIANO ABACAHIN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 47072 June 17, 1941 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 47358 June 17, 1941 - MANILA MOTOR CO., INC. v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 47432 June 17, 1941 - EUSTAQUIO FULE v. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 47542 June 17, 1941 - LA FABRICA DE CERVEZA DE SAN MIGUEL v. ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU

    072 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 47570 June 17, 1941 - IN RE: EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE PAMPANGA v. ALFREDO HIZON MERCADO

    072 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 47580 June 17, 1941 - SIMEON MANDAC v. COURT OF APPEALS

    072 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 47587 June 17, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. A. L. YATCO

    072 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 47660 June 17, 1941 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. VICENTE VERSOZA

    072 Phil 362

  • G.R. Nos. 47678 & 47679 June 17, 1941 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO, ET AL. v. ISIDORO DE SANTOS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 47724 June 17, 1941 - HERMENEGILDO DEVEZA v. MANUEL RUIZ RUILOBA

    072 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 47745 June 17, 1941 - JOSE OLIVER SUCCESSORS v. MARIAÑO NABLE, ET AL.

    072 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 47771 June 17, 1941 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO. v. GRACIANO DE LA RAMA

    072 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 47837 June 17, 1941 - SEGUNDO GARCIA v. EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS

    072 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 47848 June 17, 1941 - BONIFACIO DANGALAN v. DOMINGO MARTICIO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 47889 June 17, 1941 - ANDRES JARDIN, ET AL. v. SEVERINA VILLAMAYOR

    072 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 47972 June 17, 1941 - A. K. SPIELBERGER v. L. R. NIELSON

    072 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 47538 June 20, 1941 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. ARCO AMUSEMENT CO.

    072 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 47588 June 20, 1941 - JOSE L. LIWANAG v. TOLARAM MENGHRAJ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 47601 June 20, 1941 - EDUARDO C. GUICO v. NICASIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 47683 June 20, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. CONSOLACION M. GOMEZ, ET AL.

    072 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 47726 June 20, 1941 - MONTE DE PIEDAD, ET AL. v. VICTORINO DANGOY

    072 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 47797 June 20, 1941 - JOSEFA LABOT v. EDUVIGES LIBRADA

    072 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 47819 June 20, 1941 - LEONARDO GUISON v. LA CIUDAD DE MANILA

    072 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 48100 June 20, 1941 - FLORENCIO PELOBELLO v. GREGORIO PALATINO

    072 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 46966 June 24, 1941 - EL GOBIERNO DE FILIPINAS v. CHUNG LIU & COMPANY

    072 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 47058 June 27, 1941 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL

    072 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 47189 June 27, 1941 - A. L. AMMEN TRANS. CO. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS

    072 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 47226 June 27, 1941 - PEDRO DE JESUS v. GUAN BEE CO.

    072 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 47338 June 27, 1941 - FRANCISCO EGMIDIO v. LEON REGALADO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 47354 June 27, 1941 - EL OPISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE NUEVA SEGOVIA v. EL MUNICIPIO DE SANTA CATALINA

    072 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 47380 June 27, 1941 - ZACARIAS DE SADUESTE v. MUNICIPALITY OF SURIGAO

    072 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 47409 June 27, 1941 - ANGEL P. MIGUEL v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    072 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 47411 June 27, 1941 - J. A. WOLFSON v. MANILA STOCK EXCHANGE

    072 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 47465 June 27, 1941 - VICENTE DIAZ v. POPULAR LABOR UNION OF CAIBIRAN

    072 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 47501 June 27, 1941 - FELIX B. BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. GABRIEL LASAM, ET AL.

    072 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 47517 June 27, 1941 - IDONAH SLADE PERKINS v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

    072 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 47641 June 27, 1941 - JOSEFA BUNDALIAN, ET AL. v. JUAN DE VERA, ET AL.

    072 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 47701 June 27, 1941 - MENTHOLATUM CO. v. ANACLETO MANGALIMAN, ET AL.

    072 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 47731 June 27, 1940

    QUINTINA R. SABADO v. LEONCIA FERNANDEZ

    072 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 47888 June 27, 1941 - MANUEL VILLARAMA vs.JUANITO MANLUSOC

    072 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 47931 June 27, 1941 - ADRIANO MENDOZA v. CALIXTO PILAPIL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 546

  • G.R. Nos. 47955 y 47993 June 27, 1941 - MARIANO B. ARROY, ET AL. v. ARSENIO DIZON

    072 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 47971 June 27, 1941 - IN RE: MARIANO MAGBANUA, ET AL. v. MANUEL A. AKOL, ET AL.

    072 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 48004 June 27, 1941 - CARLOS DORONILA v. DOLORES VASQUEZ DE ARROYO

    072 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 47179 June 28, 1941 - PHIL. ASS’N OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS v. M. JESUS CUENCO, ET AL.

    072 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 47269 June 28, 1941 - KUAN LOW & CO. v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE ADUANAS

    072 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 47424 June 28, 1941 - EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

    072 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 47586 June 28, 1941 - LIM BONFING, ET AL. v. TEODORICO RODRIGUEZ

    072 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 47966 June 28, 1941 - LOPE ATIENZA v. MAXIMINO CASTILLO

    072 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 47342 June 30, 1941 - HILARIO C. RODRIGUEZ v. RAMON ECHEVARRIA

    073 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47446 June 30, 1941 - JOSE P. BANTUG v. MAMERTO ROXAS

    073 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 47637 June 30, 1941 - JOSE VISTAN v. EL ARZOBISPO CATOLICO ROMANO DE MANILA

    073 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 47663 June 30, 1941 - JULIN GO v. EL BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

    073 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 47768 June 30, 1941 - NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 47790 June 30, 1941 - IN RE: EMILIANO GUZMAN

    073 Phil 51

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 47342   June 30, 1941 - HILARIO C. RODRIGUEZ v. RAMON ECHEVARRIA<br /><br />073 Phil 1

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 47342. June 30, 1941.]

    HILARIO C. RODRIGUEZ, en su concepto de Administrador Judicial del Abintestato del finado Carlos Cervantes, demandante-apelante, contra RAMON ECHEVARRIA, demandado-apelado.

    D. Gaudencio Garcia y D. Jesus P. Morfe en representacion del apelante.

    Sres. Habana y Kimpo y Sres. Escareal, Ong y Jarencio en representacion del apelado.

    SYLLABUS


    1. VENTA CON PACTO DE RETRO; PLAZO PARA EL RETRACTO. — En la clausula 3 del Exhibit B se dice terminantemente que el plazo prorrogado que se concedio a C. C. para el retracto de la propiedad inmueble expiraria el 31 de diciembre de 1932; y en la clausula 4 se reitera que el termino del mencionado retracto expirara el 31 de diciembre de 1932 y que en el caso de que no se ejercite dicho derecho por C. C., la venta quedaria definitiva y absoluta. Se declara: Que la intencion de las partes no pudo haberse expresado mas claramente en el sentido de que el plazo prorrogado para el retracto se habia limitado hasta el 31 de diciembre de 1932.

    2. ID.; HIPOTECA. — La pretension del apelante de que las ventas con pacto de retro eran ficticias y que lo que en realidad se convinieron por las partes fueron hipotecas para garantir el prestamo de P3,000, es insostenible. Los documentos que al efecto se otorgaron son tan claros que no dejan lugar a otra interpretacion. En ellos se ha estipulado y convenido por las partes que el inmueble se vendio con pacto de retro y que el precio original fue de P4,200. Es verdad que en la segunda venta el precio se ha reducido a P3,000 solamente, pero ello se debio a que S. de la R., que fue el segundo transmitente, habia recibido ya de C. C. Ia suma de P1,200 a cuenta del precio de P4,200.


    D E C I S I O N


    HORRILLENO, M. :


    El demandante, como administrador judicial del finado Carlos Cervantes, inici" esta accion para obligar al demandado a que le permita retraer un terreno situado en la Ciudad de Dvao con sus mejoras, mediante el pago de la suma de P3,000 que fu el precio de la venta con pacto de retro. En la demanda que presento solicitaba igualmente como remedios que se cancele el certificado de transferencia de titulo de la propiedad, expedido a favor del demandado, que se expida otro favor del demandante y que se le condene al demandado a pagar cierta indemnizacion por los alquileres que debieran haber rendido el terreno y sus mejoras.

    Despus de la vista, el Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Davao dicto sentencia sobreseyendo la demanda, con las costas al demandante. ste apelo de dicha sentencia.

    Las partes sometieron el asunto mediante el siguiente convenio de hechos.

    "1. That Carlos Cervantes, now deceased, was the sole and exclusive owner of a piece of real property situated in the then municipality of Davao, Province of Davao, now City of Davao, containing an area of 2,180 sq. m., and more specifically described in Original Certificate of Title No. 356.

    "2. That on March 5, 1928, the said Carlos Cervantes and Santiago de la Rosa executed a document of sale with the right of repurchase, whereby the said Carlos Cervantes for and in consideration of the sum of P4,200 sold and transferred to the said Santiago de la Rosa the property and improvements described in Original Certificate of Title No. 356. The right to repurchase was for a period of two years from March 5, 1928, or until March 4, 1930. The document was executed before Notary Public Celestino Chavez on March 5, 1928, and registered in the Register of Deeds of Davao on the same day. The terms of the said deed of sale are not questioned by the parties herein and said deed of sale is hereto attached, marked as Exhibit A of this agreed statement of facts, and made an integral part hereof.

    "3. That on October 3, 1931, Santiago de la Rosa, who was then Manager of the Davao Branch of the Philippine National Bank, and in view of his transfer from Davao to another station sold and transferred his rights, interest and participation in the deed of sale mentioned in paragraph 2, marked as Exhibit A, with the knowledge, consent and acquiescence of Carlos Cervantes, to the herein defendant Ramon Echevarria. The said document is entitled "Cesion de Derechos en Una Venta con Pacto de Retro" and signed by Santiago de la Rosa, Ramon Echevarria and Carlos Cervantes before Notary Public Isidro S. Bastida on October 3, 1931. The parties herein do not question the terms and stipulation in the said document of October 3, 1931 and the same is made an integral part of this stipulation of facts, being identified as Exhibit B.

    "4. That paragraph three, four and five of the said document Exhibit B referred to in the foregoing paragraph are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "3. Que en consideracion a la suma de tres mil pesos (P3,000), moneda filipina, que el Sr. Ramon Echevarria, soltero, mayor de edad, ciudadano español y con su direcci "n postal, Davao, Davao, me ha pagado y las he recibido a mi entera y completa satisfacci "n, y con la conformidad del mismo dueño del terreno Don Carlos Cervantes, quien se hace parte de esta escritura, por la presente cedo y traspaso todo mi derecho, inters y titulo a favor del mencionado Ramon Echevarria, sus herederos y causahabientes, en la mencionada escritura de venta con pacto de retro de fecha 5 de marzo de 1928 arriba descrita, como si Ram "n Echevarria era y es comprador a retro de la finca descrita en el Certificado Original de Titulo No. 356, mediante la expresa condicion de que l o sea Don Ramon Echevarria tiene que dar un plazo adicional para la recompra de la finca hasta el 31 de diciembre de 1932, y mediante la condici "n, adems de que el citado Ramon Echevarria es el que tiene derecho de cobrar los alquileres de las casas o edificios que se hallan dentro de la finca, dejando, sin embargo al referido Carlos Cervantes para vivir en su misma casa, y sin alquiler alguno durante la vigencia del presente contrato; queda tambin convenido que al mencionado Don Carlos Cervantes no exigir del mencionado Don Ramon Echevarria que los alquileres cobrados durante el plazo del retracto, sean deducidos del precio de la compra estipulado en este contrato.

    "4. Que las condiciones del presente contrato son tales de que si Don Carlos Cervantes pagare o haga que se pague la cantidad de tres mil pesos (P3,000), moneda filipina, al mencionado Don Ram "n Echevarria, al vencimiento del plazo del retracto convenido, que terminar el 31 de diciembre de 1932, entonces esta venta a retro se quedar nulo y sin valor alguno; en caso contrario, esta venta ser definitiva y sin necesidad de otorgar una nueva escritura.

    "5. Que queda tambin pactado y convenido que en cualquiera fecha Don Carlos Cervantes podra recomprar la finca mediante el pago de la suma de tres mil pesos (P3,000), moneda filipina."cralaw virtua1aw library

    "5. That upon the expiration of December 31, 1932, the defendant Ramon Echevarria took steps for the cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. 356 which was in fact cancelled and in lieu thereof Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1092 was issued in his name on January 21, 1933. Previous to the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1092 and on January 5, 1933, the defendant Ramon Echevarria sent the following registered letter to Carlos Cervantes.

    "DAVAO, DAVAO, I. F.

    Enero 5, 1933.

    "Sr. Dn. CARLOS CERVANTES

    Calle San Pedro

    Davao, Davao.

    "MUY SR. MIO:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Por la presente queda Vd. notificado que no habiendo Vd. recomprado dentro del plazo convenido que expir" el 31 de diciembre de 1932, el terreno solar con todas sus mejoras que Vd. me lo vendio con pacto de retro, segun escritura de fecha 3 de octubre de 1931 y ratificada ante la fe del Notario Publico, Sr. Isidro Bastida, me he quedado por ministerio de la ley dueño absoluto del referido solar y sus mejoras.

    "En vista de lo que antecede, le requiero a Vd. que desaloje y abandone la casa donde Vd. vive inmediatamente, con la advertencia, ademas, de que a partir desde el primero de los corrientes y hasta que salga Vd. le cobrar un alquiler de cincuenta pesos (P50) mensuales, como dueño absoluto de la casa ocupada por Vd.

    "Muy respetuosamente,

    (Fdo.) "RAMON ECHEVARRIA

    "P. O. Box No. 40, Davao"

    "6. That Carlos Cervantes, in his lifetime, was living in the property in question until his death on September 7, 1933, and his successors in interest continue to live therein up to the present time without paying any rent notwithstanding repeated demands of Ramon Echevarria to pay a monthly rental of P50.

    "7. That Ramon Echevarria on various occasions required the successors in interest of Carlos Cervantes, deceased, to vacate the premises but he refused to do so to this date.

    "8. That due to their failure to leave the premises, Ramon Echevarria filed a complaint for ejectment against them. The case is registered in this Court as civil case No. 1252. On September 19, 1935, the said case was dismissed by the Court Motu Proprio, the order of dismissal being as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "AUTO

    "Por escrito de 19 de septiembre de 1935, las partes solicitan la transferencia de la vista señalada para hoy hasta el 3 de octubre de 1935, pero esta causa se ha promovido en 23 de marzo de 1933. De entonces ac ha estado pendiente de tramitaci "n, sin haberse hecho por los interesados ninguna gesti "n para su pronto despacho. Por lo que, el Juzgado motu propio fij" este dia para la vista de la misma. Y, no obstante, las partes mismas piden ahora la posposici "n de la vista sin motivo suficientemente justificado.

    "Por tanto, el Juzgado, habiendo al parecer las partes perdido el inters en su prosecuci "n, sobresee esta causa, denegado la transferencia solicitada, de conformidad con el articulo 127 del C "digo de Procedimiento Civil, sin costas.

    "Asi se ordena.

    "Davao, Davao, a 19 de septiembre de 1935.

    (Fdo.) CEFERINO HILARIO

    "Juez del 26.x Distrito Judicial"

    "9. That the deceased Carlos Cervantes failed to pay taxes on the property from 1931. And when the title to the property was registered in the name of the defendant Ramon Echevarria, he had the taxes consolidated to avoid the property being sold at public auction. That since then Ramon Echevarria has been paying for all the taxes due on the property.

    "10. That prior to June 18, 1937, neither the deceased Carlos Cervantes nor anybody in his name offered to repurchase the property in question from Ramon Echevarria. Then on June 18, 1937, Atty. Tiburcio Cervantes, one of the sons of the deceased Carlos Cervantes, wrote a letter to Ramon Echevarria offering to repurchase the property in question. The letter was not accompanied by any money or check for the said repurchase. The said letter is as follows:red:chanrobles.com.ph

    "June 18, 1937

    "Mr. RAMON ECHEVARRIA

    City of Davao

    "SIR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    In my own behalf and in behalf of my coheirs I wish to advise you that as heirs of the late Carlos Cervantes we are ready to pay you the P3,000 due you under the contract executed on October 3, 1931, between you and the said deceased, at any time you make demand from us. Under clause 5 of the said contract we have the right to repurchase the property, subject of the contract, at any time upon payment to you the P3,000. You are, therefore, requested to prepare the necessary papers for the transfer of the property in favor of the heirs of said Carlos Cervantes.

    "In the event that you refuse to make the necessary transfer in our favor within a reasonable time from the receipt of this letter we shall be compelled to bring the matter to Court for judicial determination.

    "Hoping for an early reply on the matter, I beg to remain,.

    Yours respectfully,

    (Sgd.) TIBURCIO S. CERVANTES"

    "11. That this case filed on June 26, 1937.."

    El apelante sostiene: (1) que el Juzgado err" al no declarar que el Exhibit A, considerando sus trminos y estipulaciones, es en equidad una hipoteca para garantizar el pago de P4,200 que aparentemente representa un prstamo de P3,000 ms sus intereses al 20 por ciento al año, o un total de intereses de P1,200 por dos años; (2) que el Juzgado err" al no declarar que el Exhibit B no es en realidad un documento de venta con pacto de retro, sino una mera novaci "n del Exhibit A que extendi" el plazo para el retracto hasta el 31 de diciembre de 1932; y (3) que el Juzgado erro al no declarar que bajo la clusula 5 del Exhibit B el demandante tiene derecho a recomprar la propiedad mediante el pago de la suma de P3,000.

    En el fondo toda la cuesti "n se limita a determinar si el plazo estatuido para el retracto ha expirado ya y, consiguientemente, si el demandante, como administrador judicial del finado Carlos Cervantes, tiene aun derecho a retraer el inmueble que se vendi" con pacto de retro.

    Convenimos con el Juzgado en que segun la escritura, Exhibit B, el plazo prorrogado fijado por las partes para el retracto expiro el 31 de diciembre de 1932 de conformidad con las clusulas contenidas en el Exhibit B que es la escritura de venta otorgada por Santiago de la Rosa a favor del demandado Ramon Echevarria con intervencion y aquiescencia del difunto Carlos Cervantes.

    En la clusula 3 del Exhibit B se dice treminantemente que el plazo prorrogado que se concedio a Carlos Cervantes para el retracto de la propiedad inmueble expiraria el 31 de diciembre de 1932; y en la clausula 4 se reitera que el trmino del mencionado retracto expirar el 31 de diciembre de 1932 y que en el caso de que no se ejercite dicho derecho por Carlos Cervantes, la venta quedaria definitiva y absoluta. Declaramos que la intencion de las partes no pudo haberse expresado ms claramente en el sentido de que el plazo prorrogado para el retracto se habia limitado hasta el 31 de diciembre de 1932. Pero se alega por el apelante que la clusula 5 del documento demuestra que dicho plazo no quedo limitado a la indicada fecha, sino que dejo a voluntad del vendedor el retraer la propiedad en cualquier tiempo. Dicha clsula se lee asi:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "5. Queda tambin pactado y convenido que en cualquiera fecha, Don Carlos Cervantes podr recomprar la finca mediante el pago de la suma de tres mil pesos (P3,000), moneda filipina."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Opinamos con el Juzgado que la clausula 5 debe leerse o interpretarse en relacion con las clausulas precedentes 3 y 4 y que asi interpretada resulta que las partes contratantes no quisieron decir otra cosa sino que el vendedor podia recomprar la propiedad inmueble en cualquiera fecha antes del 31 de diciembre de 1932. No podemos convenir con la interpretacion dada por el apelante porque, de ser asi, la clausula 5 pugnaria con la intencion expresada en las clusulas 3 y 4 y no habria terminos habiles para armonizar ni conciliar los conceptos de las tres clausulas.

    La pretension del apelante de que las ventas con pacto de retro eran ficticias y que lo que en realidad se convinieron por las partes fueron hipotecas para garantir el prestamo de P3,000, es insostenible. Los documentos que al efecto se otorgaron son tan claros que no dejan lugar a otra interpretacion. En ellos se ha estipulado y convenido por las partes que el inmueble se vendio con pacto de retro y que el precio original fu de P4,200. Es verdad que en la segunda venta el precio se ha reducido a P3,000 solamente, pero ello se debio a que Santiago de la Rosa, que fu el segundo transmitente, habia recibido ya de Carlos Cervantes la suma de P1,200 a cuenta del precio de P4,200.

    Se confirma la decision recurrida, con las costas de esta instancia al apelante.

    Avanceña, Pres., Diaz, y Moran, MM., estan conformes.

    Separate Opinions


    LAUREL, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I dissent.

    Considering the terms and stipulations contained in the alleged pacto de retro sale, Exhibit A, between Carlos Cervantes and Santiago de la Rosa, I express the opinion that the transaction was merely one of loan and that Exhibit A was merely intended as security for the payment of that loan. In other words, what purports to be a deed of sale with the right of repurchase should be construed merely as an equitable mortgage to guarantee the payment of what appears to be the liquidated amount obtained by Carlos Cervantes, the alleged vendor, from Santiago de la Rosa, the alleged vendee. My reasons for reaching this conclusion are the following:.

    (1) The vendor continued in possession of the property notwithstanding execution of the document, Exhibit A. There is not even any stipulation in this document that the supposed vendor was to continue occupying the property as a lessee. In fact, it is alleged in paragraph V of the complaint (p. 4, bill of exceptions) "Que desde la fecha en que se otorgo" la escritura de venta a retro a favor de Santiago de la Rosa, Exhibito A, hasta esta fecha, Carlos Cervantes en vida y despeus su familia, viuda e hijos, continuaron y continuan hasta esta fecha viviendo en el mismo terreno como unicos dueños y exclusivos del mismo, sin reconocer a ningun otro dueño", and this fact of posession by the supposed vendor and his successors in interest is not even denied or controverted. On the contrary, in the counterclaim filed by the defendant, this fact of possession is expressly admitted, as according to the allegation therein contained, the heirs of the vendor refused to pay rents or vacate the premises, and asked that the plaintiff vendor be adjudged to pay the sum of P2,850 covering the rent of the premises from January, 1933.

    (2) Under the terms of Exhibit A, the vendor would be entitled to collect and receive "todas las rentas y productos de la propiedad objeto de esta venta durante el referido plazo del retracto, para mi exclusivo beneficio." (Clause [c], Exhibit A.)

    (3) Under the terms and conditions of the document, Exhibit A, also, the vendor is authorized to make partial payments "a cuenta de la indicada suma." (Clause [b] Exhibit A.)

    (4) That the vendor will continue to shoulder the expenses for the repair of the building thereon as well as the taxes that may become due on the property sold. (Clause [d], Exhibit A.) .

    These circumstances are, in my opinion, strong and clear indicia that the transaction intended was that of a loan and not of purchase with pacto de retracto. It is a well-settled doctrine that contracts are not what the parties see fit to call them but what they are by principles of law. (Compañia Agricola de Ultrazar v. Reyes, 4 Phil., 2, 23.) And where an instrument contains words usually found in a sale with a right of repurchase but also contains other words and expressions not usually found in such instruments 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 were such as to demonstrate that they regarded the instrument in question as a security for a loan, the same will be held not to be a sale but a security. (Manlaguit v. Sanchez Dy Puico, 34 Phil., 325.)

    If Exhibit A should be considered as a mere security for the payment of a loan, and since Exhibit B is on its face merely an assignment by Santiago de la Rosa to Ramon Echevarria, the defendant- appellee herein, of the former’s right and interest under Exhibit A (paragraph 3, Exhibit B), it follows that the defendant-appellee merely acquired the right of a creditor with an equitable mortgage and certainly no greater right than that of his predecessor in interest, the original creditor with an equitable mortgage. It is to be observed that although at the time of the execution of Exhibit B, which was on October 3, 1931, the purported period of redemption under Exhibit A had already expired, and the original creditor, Santiago de la Rosa, could have pretended to be the absolute owner of the property and could have sold the same to the defendant, Echevarria, said original creditor merely sold his rights under Exhibit A, and the herein defendant-appellee agreed to extend the period for paying the obligation to December 31, 1932, and further expressly agreed to allow the deceased, Carlos Cervantes, to repurchase the property at any time.

    Viewed in the light of what has been said, it is easy to comprehend why in the contract, Exhibit B, it is stipulated that the supposed original vendor could redeem the property "en cualquiera fecha . . . mediante el pago de la suma de tres mil pesos (P3,000), moneda filipina." (Clause 5, Exhibit B, p. 18, bill of exceptions.)

    Upon the other hand, assuming that there is doubt as to whether Exhibit A is a contract of sale with pacto de retro or an equitable mortgage, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the latter, because such a contract involves a smaller transmission of rights and interests, and the debtor does not surrender all rights to his property but simply confers upon the creditor the right to collect what is owing from the value of the thing given as security, there existing between the parties a greater reciprocity of rights and obligations. (Art. 1289, Civil Code; Olino v. Medina, 13 Phil., 379; Perez v. Cortes, 15 Phil., 211; Padilla v. Linsangan, 19 Phil., 65.) .

    In reaching the foregoing conclusion I have not overlooked the circumstances that the so-called vendee a retro sold his rights to the herein defendant-appellee for only three thousand pesos on the theory that the former had already been paid P1,200 of the original sum of P4,200 as mentioned in clause 2 of Exhibit B. It is worthy to note the coincidence that, as alleged by the plaintiff-appellant, P1,200 is exactly equal to the interest of P3,000 for two years, which is the period of redemption stipulated in Exhibit A, or at the usurious rate of interest of 20 per cent per annum. Neither have I overlooked the circumstance that the defendant-appellee herein was willing to recall the property only for the sum of P20,000, and while this may be construed as a mere courteous refusal to part with the property, such circumstance is significant to bear in mind. Whether the contract contemplated was one of mortgage or sale, in view of the appellee’s admitted fact that at the time of the alleged sale the property had an income of P1,560 per annum, and assuming that the original loan was P3,000 as contended by the plaintiff-appellant, the value of the property at the time of the execution of the said contract must have been very much more. In the case of Cabigao v. Lim (50 Phil., 844, 860), we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The presumptions are that a person takes ordinary care of his own business and that he is of sound mind until otherwise proven. (Code of Civ. Proc., sec. 334.) If these presumptions hold good, we must also presume that the plaintiff would not sell his land for less than one-seventh of its value and less than one-half of the annual revenue produced therefrom, unless the sale was intended merely as security for a loan, and there is not sufficient evidence in the record to overcome this presumption. In its essential points, the case is very similar to that of Aguilar v. Rubiato and Gonzalez Vila (40 Phil., 570), in which this court held that an alleged sale, with the right to repurchase, was only a mortgage."cralaw virtua1aw library

    By and large substantial justice will be done all concerned by holding the contract as one of equitable mortgage and not of sale with pacto de retro: the heirs of the deceased will retain the ownership of the common property inherited from their predecessor in interest upon payment of the amount of the indebtedness and interest thereon, and the supposed vendee will get back his money and its earnings. Fundamenta justitiae sunt ut ne cui neceatur.

    I am, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed, and reconveyance of the property to the heirs of Carlos Cervantes permitted, upon payment of the amount of the loan, plus interest, without pronouncement regarding costs.

    G.R. No. 47342   June 30, 1941 - HILARIO C. RODRIGUEZ v. RAMON ECHEVARRIA<br /><br />073 Phil 1


    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