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
 

   
May-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1674 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SOMERA

    083 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1765 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TANDUG

    083 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-1881 May 9, 1949 - MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-1512 May 12, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO

    083 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-1900 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO LACSON

    083 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-2064 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO TORRES

    083 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1769 May 13, 1949 - PURITA PANAGUITON v. FLORENTINO PATUBO

    083 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-1833 May 13, 1949 - MEDARDO MUÑOZ v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    083 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. E.C. CAÑADA

    083 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1429 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO AQUINO Y ABALOS

    083 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-1950 May 16, 1949 - LAO SENG HIAN v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-2014 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN Z. YELO

    083 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-1212 May 18, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CELESTINO BASA Y OTROS

    083 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-1918 May 18, 1949 - PEDRO L. FLORES v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    083 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-2484 May 18, 1949 - LEE KO v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    083 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-2117 May 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO SOMBILON

    083 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-1471 May 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ORAZA

    083 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-1917 May 20, 1949 - CATALINO MAGLASANG v. CIRILO C. MACEREN

    083 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-2245 May 20, 1949 - AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    083 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-2831 May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    083 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-432 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CALINAWAN

    083 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1795-6 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ

    083 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-1989 May 23, 1949 - JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    083 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-2203 May 23, 1949 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2431 May 23, 1949 - CEFERINO TAVORA v. PEDRO OFIANA

    083 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 213 May 24, 1949 - GENEROSA A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENT CORP.

    083 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-1700 May 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MINTU

    083 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2004 May 24, 1949 - PABLO COTAOCO v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    083 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-2251 May 24, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ELISA TANDAG

    083 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-1980 May 25, 1949 - CIPRIANO SEVILLA v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS

    083 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-944 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO AVILA

    083 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-1823 May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO

    083 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-1825 May 26, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EUGENIO BERSIDA

    083 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-2022 May 26, 1949 - GUIA S. J0SE DE BAYER v. ERNESTO OPPEN

    083 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2161 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES YOUNG

    083 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-2323 May 26, 1949 - M. A. ZARCAL v. S. HERRERO

    083 Phil 711

  • G.R. Nos. L-675 & L-676 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LASTIMOSO

    083 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1274 May 27, 1949 - PHIL. TRANSIT ASSN. v. TREASURER OF MANILA

    083 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1394 May 27, 1949 - RAFAEL ROA YROSTORZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-1861 May 27, 1949 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-1869 May 27, 1949 - JOSE PIO BARRETTO v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-2300 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB

    083 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-2382 May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949 - IN RE: YEE BO MANN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-2518 May 28, 1949 - DONATA OLIVEROS DE TAN v. ENGRACIO FABRE

    083 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-2539 May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO

    083 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1511 May 30, 1949 - MIGUEL OJO v. JOSE V. JAMITO

    083 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1550 May 30, 1949 - IN RE: FREDERICK EDWARD GILBERT ZUELLIG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-1609 May 30, 1949 - REMIGIO M. PEÑA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-1686 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTOS TOLEDO

    083 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1723 May 30, 1949 - LUZ MARQUEZ DE SANDOVAL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    083 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-1978 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO ORCULLO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1996 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIP JULMAIN

    083 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-2031 May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS

    083 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-2069 May 30, 1949 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

    083 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-2083 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MALIG

    083 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-2098 May 30, 1949 - PIO MARQUEZ v. ARSENIO PRODIGALIDAD

    083 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2099 May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-2130 May 30, 1949 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ v. PEDRO SERRANO

    083 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-2132 May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO.

    083 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 49102 May 30, 1949 - W.C. OGAN v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    083 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 - EASTERN THEATRICAL CO. v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    083 Phil 852

  • G.R. Nos. L-1264 & L-1265 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SAGARIO

    083 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-1271 May 31, 1949 - BENIGNO DEL RIO v. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY

    083 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-1281 May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    083 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-1298 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTOS BALINGIT

    083 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-1299 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB J. LOEWINSOHN

    083 Phil 882

  • G.R. No. L-1827 May 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO

    083 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 - CRISTOBAL ROÑO v. JOSE L. GOMEZ

    083 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-1952 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO R. VlLLAROMAN v. FLORENTINO J. TECHICO

    083 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. L-2108 May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    083 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

    083 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-2253 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO

    083 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-2283 May 31, 1949 - MARINA TAYZON and FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES v. RAMON YCASIANO

    083 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-2326 May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

    083 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-2351 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO ARGOS v. DOMINADOR VELOSO

    083 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-2377 May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO

    083 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949 - VERONICA RUPERTO v. CEFERINO FERNANDO

    083 Phil 943

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2031   May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS<br /><br />083 Phil 796

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2031. May 30, 1949.]

    HERMOGENES C. LIM, Petitioner, v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS and LEONOR ALCARAZ, Respondents.

    Laurel, Sabido, Almario & Laurel; Francisco Angeles and Abejo & Osorio for Petitioner.

    Bustos & Bustos for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CONTRACTS; "PACTO DE RETRO" ; MORTGAGE; QUESTION OF FACT; COURT OF APPEAL. — The question whether or not the deal is a pacto de retro sale or a mortgage in view of the circumstances, necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence, considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole and the probabilities of the situation, all of which constitute questions of fact which pertain to the Court of Appeals to solve.

    2. PRECEDENTS; FINDINGS OF FACT; BEFORE THE CREATION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND PROMULGATION OF THE NEW RULES OF COURT. — Decisions which were heretofore laid down as to the finality of findings of fact, of the Court of Appeals, should not be emasculated through finely drawn distinctions; on the contrary, they should be given such meaning and operation as will further expedite judicial business, this court meticulously avoiding duplication of work.


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    This petition to review the Court of Appeals’ decision written by the late Justice Salvador Abad Santos involves the question whether the notarial document Exhibit A signed by the plaintiff-appellant in favor of the defendants-appellees represented a pacto de retro sale or a mere mortgage. The instrument, in plain language, transfers title to one-half of a residential lot and house in Meycauayan, Bulacan, subject to the right of the vendor Hermogenes C. Lim to repurchase the same within one year.

    Contending that the contract was a loan with security, Lim instituted this proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan where, after the issues had been properly joined, evidence was introduced by both sides. The Honorable Bonifacio Ysip, Judge, pronounced it an actual sale with reservation to repurchase, and gave judgment accordingly. On appeal the Court of Appeals made a thorough study of our decisions in similar cases, discussed the alleged circumstances demonstrating a loan disguised the alleged circumstances demonstrating a loan disguised as pacto de retro, and concluded that, in accordance with our doctrines, the evidence was insufficient to prove the parties had made a contract different from a pacto de retro sale.

    In that court Lim argued (motion for reconsideration) that the weight of evidence showed the following circumstances: (a) inadequate price; (b) vendor, at time of sale, urgently needed money; (c) vendor remained in possession of the land; (d) vendor paid land taxes during period of repurchase; (e) purchaser accepted partial payments; (f) transaction originated from a borrowing of money from Dr. Urrutia.

    Justice Abad Santos found that the property was worth P2,000 and held that the price of the sale (P1,300) was not grossly inadequate. Note that inadequacy of price is immaterial unless it is grossly inadequate. He also declared that Lim "was not in urgent need of money when he sold the property to defendants." Then he added that the third and fourth circumstances were not incompatible with a veritable pacto de retro. The last two circumstances had not been duly established according to him. One detail omitted in Lim’s motion for reconsideration is that in her letter Exhibit 12 defendant Leonor Alcaraz used the word "sanglaan" referring to the contract. The Court of Appeals found however that according to the evidence the expression equally applied to conditional sales.

    In his request for revision herein submitted, the petitioner- appellant insists that the transaction was actually a loan; and he points out to these circumstances; (1) the sale included only one-half of the lot and the house; (2) the rents paid by vendor, as lessee, were exactly twelve per cent (12%) of the price; (3) subsequent additional loans extended to him by defendants; (4) delay in collecting rents and in consolidating title; (5) payment of taxes; (6) the word "sanglaan" in Exhibit 12; and (7) inadequacy of the purchase price.

    (1) he Court of First Instance explained that Lim was owner of one-half only of the property, wherefore it was natural that the sale should cover one half; (5, 6, 7) These were declared insignificant by the Court of Appeals; (3) Defendants deny that there were additional loans; (2) The appellate tribunal saw this point, but declined to side with plaintiff. We may add: twelve percent being legal rate of interest, there was no reason to clothe the loan with the vestment of pacto de retro. (4) This was not discussed by the Court of Appeals; it might have deemed the coincidence fully explained by other evidence of record. Must we presently search the expediente to determine whether it should be an additional point on the side of Lim’s proposition? If we do that we might as well be asked to consider for defendants, other proven circumstances which were not mentioned by the Court of Appeals. As a result, we would thereby be entering into questions of fact within the exclusive domain of that intermediate court.

    Wherefore our review should be confined to the facts and circumstances found by the Court of Appeals. And we agree that such facts and circumstances in this case do not sustain the theory of the appellant. Indeed it is seriously to be doubted whether we could reverse the conclusion of the appellate court to the effect that those facts and circumstances are not "enough evidence" to show clearly and beyond doubt that the parties intended the contract to be a mortgage instead of a conditional conveyance. That conclusion is obviously one of fact, not a bit different from the verdict of a jury in a murder trial that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution has proved, or has not proved the accused had killed the deceased.

    In disputes of this nature the pivotal inquiry is: Do the circumstances show beyond doubt that the parties made a contract different from the express terms of the document they signed? Is the evidence clear, convincing and satisfactory that the deal was a mortgage instead of a sale with pacto de retro? (Cuyugan v. Santos 34 Phil., 100; Tolentino v. Gonzales, 50 Phil., 558.) That query necessarily invites calibration of the whole "evidence," considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole and the probabilities of the situation. Consequently the question must be deemed factual, for the Appeals’ Court to solve.

    In the United States where questions of law are for the judge and questions of fact for the jury, it is held that if the question whether a given transaction amounts to a conditional sale or a mere mortgage depends upon written instruments alone it is a question for the court; but if extraneous evidence is required or received for the purpose of ascertaining the real intention of the parties the question is for the jury (41 C. J., 361 citing many cases, particularly Bogk v. Gassert, 149 U. S., 17; Howard v. Kopperl, 74 Tex., 494; 5 S. W., 627 and Kinnert v. Strong, 103 Wis., 70; 79 N. W., 32). And "an issue involving determination of the . . intent of a person or persons with respect to acts done by them is a question of fact for the jury (64 C. J., 365)."cralaw virtua1aw library

    To the argument, if advanced, that the Philippine Reports abound with litigations in which this Court has passed upon identical issues, the answer is that those litigations have not passed through the intermediate court to whose findings of fact we have given final character by our new rules and rulings designed to speed up the adjudication of causes through a division of labor. Those distinctions, stemming may be from well-intentioned purposes to revise; on the contrary, they should be given such meaning and operation as will further expedite judicial business, this court meticulously avoiding duplication of work.

    No cause for worry, to be sure. The knowledge that theirs is the final word will inevitably confirm and strengthen in the members of the appellate tribunal that sobering sense of responsibility so essential to the search for truth in the dispensation of justice.

    In conclusion, the Court of Appeals having declared that, according to the evidence, the instrument reflects the true agreement and intention of the parties, we will not examine that same evidence nor declare that it does not.

    The petition is dismissed, with costs,

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Pablo, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    PERFECTO, J., dissenting.

    There are undisputed circumstances upon which we feel unavoidable the conclusion that the transaction in question is one of equitable mortgage and not a real pacto de retro sale. Among the decisive circumstances in favor of this conclusion are the following: inadequacy of price the fact that Lim remained in possession of the land, the fact that he paid land taxes, the fact that the supposed purchaser accepted partial payments and, finally, the fact that, in describing the transaction, defendant Leonor Alcaraz pointed to it as sanglaan.

    The transaction took place in Meycauayan, one of the municipalities of a Tagalog province, Bulacan, and there cannot be any question that the parties were fully aware of the true meaning of sanglaan in Tagalog, the language prevailing in the province.

    We have devoted considerable time in studying Tagalog and no less than four-fifths of our life have been spent by us residing in places where Tagalog is the main language. As a matter of fact, Tagalog has been recognized as national and official language due to our initiative and about twenty years endeavor. We are in a position to definitely state that sanglaan is a word that is used to mean only either mortgage or pledge, and never a sale or a pacto de retro sale.

    We vote to grant the petition and to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

    PARAS, J.:


    I concur.

    G.R. No. L-2031   May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS<br /><br />083 Phil 796


    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