Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > August 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20901 August 31, 1965 - CIRIACA SANTOS v. TEODORICA DUATA , ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20901. August 31, 1965.]

CIRIACA SANTOS, Petitioner, v. TEODORICA DUATA and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Restituto G. Martinez and Patrocinio D. Francisco for Petitioner.

Jose H. Tecson for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. PACTO DE RETRO SALE; WHEN CONSIDERED EQUITABLE MORTGAGE. — Where, despite the execution of the sale with pacto de retro, the vendor remained in possession of the land sold in the concept of an owner and continued paying the land tax thereon, the presumption, under Art. 1602 of the New Civil Code, is that the contract is an equitable mortgage.

2. ID.; ID.; RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF ART. 1602. — Art. 1602 of the New Civil Code is remedial in nature; hence, it may be applied retroactive to cases arising prior to the effectivity of the new Civil Code.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Apolonio del Mundo and his brother, Dalmacio, were lessees of a parcel of land in the Lolomboy Friar Lands Estate situated at Polo, Bulacan. On November 11, 1908 Apolonio del Mundo sold his rights to the land to the spouses Pedro Duata and Epifania Aguilar for the sum of P40.00. Since then until the present time said spouses, and later their daughter, Teodorica Duata, have adverse, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the land. This same property subsequently became a part (one-fourth) of Lot No. 37 of the Malanday, Lolomboy Friar Lands Estate covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11938.

On March 23, 1933 Ciriaca Santos, Petrona Gaanan and Epifania Aguilar purchased Lot No. 37 from the Bureau of Lands with the previous agreement that Petrona Gaanan would receive one-half of the lot and Ciriaca Santos and the Duata spouses would share equally the other half. The portion allocated to the Duata spouses was the very same land over which Apolonio del Mundo conveyed to them his rights in 1908. For convenience and facility in making payments on the purchase price and in the issuance of the corresponding certificate of title, Lot No. 37’s title certificate was issued in the name of Ciriaca Santos.

On August 3, 1955 Teodorica Duata, the daughter of the Duata spouses, instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan against Ciriaca Santos for the reconveyance of one-fourth of Lot No. 37. In her answer Ciriaca Santos denied the ownership of the Duata spouses over one-fourth of Lot No. 37 and alleged that assuming the land in question belonged to the Duata spouses, the same had already been sold to her by Epifania Aguilar. She later produced in court a private document (Exhibit 3) purportedly executed by Epifania Aguilar on September 25, 1938 wherein said Epifania Aguilar sold for and in consideration of P154.00 a one-fourth interest in Lot No. 37, subject to repurchase within one year from September 25, 1938.

Ciriaca Santos died on February 8, 1957 and was substituted by her sole heir, Juana Prodon, as defendant.

It was admitted by defendant during pre-trial and the trial court found that the spouses Pedro Duata and Epifania Aguilar owned one- fourth of Lot No. 37; that Epifania Aguilar sold the one-fourth interest to Ciriaca Santos on September 25, 1938 with right to repurchase the same within one year from said date; that since the land was not repurchased within the time stipulated, ownership over the same became vested in Ciriaca Santos. It, therefore, declared the defendant owner of the property in question and dismissed the complaint.

Teodorica Duata appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals considered the transaction between Ciriaca Santos and Epifania Aguilar an equitable mortgage rather than a pacto de retro sale. It then set aside the judgment of the trial court and entered another one which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby set aside, and another entered, (1) ordering defendant-appellee to execute the proper deed of conveyance and transfer over 1/2 of Lot 37-B of the Lolomboy estate in favor of plaintiff-appellant upon payment by the latter within 90 days from the finality of this decision the mortgage loan of P154.00 to the former; and (2) ordering said defendant-appellee to surrender T.C.T. No. 11938 to the Register of Deeds of Bulacan for the annotation of the need of conveyance and transfer, No pronouncement as to costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

Defendant appealed to this Court.

The sole issue is whether Ciriaca Santos and Epifania Aguilar in executing the document marked Exhibit 3 intended a mortgage or sale with pacto de retro.

The pertinent portion of Exhibit 3 reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"II. Na, alang-alang sa halagang ISANG DAAN AT LIMAMPU’T APAT NA PISO (P154.00) na tinanggap ko at ibinayad sa akin ni Bb. Ciriaca Santos, Filipina may sapat na gulang, dalaga at naninirahan sa Maykawayan, Bulakan, K. P., sa pamamagitan ng kasulatang ito ay aking ipinagbibili ng biling mabibiling muli ang ika-apat na bahagi ng nasabing lupa sa itaas nito sa nasabi ng Bb. Ciriaca Santos sa ilalim ng kasunduang gaya ng mga sumusunod:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) Ng, bibilhin kong muli sa halagang P154.00 ang nasabing pag-aari ko, sa loob ng isang taon simula ngayon;

"(b) Na, sakaling hindi ko mabiling muli ang nasabing lupa sa loob ng isang taon simula sa fechang ito ay magiging lubusang pag-aari na ni Bb. Ciriaca Santos ang nasabing pag-aari na hindi na kakailanganin pa ang panibagong kasulatan ng bilihang lubusan."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above-quoted stipulation, standing alone, would show a transfer by Epifania Aguilar to Ciriaca Santos of one-fourth of Lot No. 37 by way of sale with pacto de retro. The coetaneous actuations of Epifania Aguilar and Ciriaca Santos, however, indicate the contrary. For, despite execution of Exhibit 3, Epifania Aguilar remained in possession of the land in the concept of an owner. She and her daughter continued paying the land tax — a burden attached to ownership 1 — on the property. Previous, simultaneous and subsequent acts of the parties are properly cognizable indicia of their true intention. 2 The attendance of such circumstances raises the presumption under Article 1602 of the New Civil Code that Exhibit 3 is an equitable mortgage:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 1602. The contract shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage, in any of the following cases:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is unusually inadequate;

"(2) When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise;

"(3) When upon or after the expiration of the right to repurchase another instrument extending the period of redemption or granting a new period is executed;

"(4) When the purchaser retain for himself a part of the purchase price;

"(5) When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold;

"(6) In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation.

"In any of the foregoing cases, any money, fruits, or other benefit to be received by the vendee as rent or otherwise shall be considered as interest which shall be subject to the usury laws."cralaw virtua1aw library

Ciriaca Santos however maintains that mere possession of the land and payment of land taxes due thereon by Duata would not warrant presumption that Exhibit 3 is an equitable mortgage. Accordingly, she contends that there must be a "concurrence of an overwhelming number of circumstances" before the presumption would arise. To this proposition we do not agree. Article 1602, when it expressly states "in any of the following cases", contemplates the existence of any of the circumstance enumerated therein.

Article 1602 is a new provision in the Civil Code designed primarily to curtail the evils brought about by contracts of sale with right of repurchase, such as the circumvention of the usury law and pactum commissorium. It particularly evasions contracts of sale with right of repurchase where the real intention of the parties is that the pretended purchase price is money loaned, and in order to secure the payment of the loan a contract purporting to be a sale with pacto de retro is drawn up. 3

Being remedial in nature, Article 1602 may be applied retroactively to cases arising prior to the effectivity of the New Civil Code. 4 Hence, it may be applied in this case to determine the nature of Exhibit 3.

The Court of Appeals found that the deceased Epifania Aguilar obtained a loan from Ciriaca Santos for which she put up the land in question as security; that the loan remained unpaid by reason of Ciriaca Santos’ refusal to accept payment; and that after Epifania Aguilar’s death, her daughter, Teodorica Duata, on several occasions tendered payment for her mother’s indebtedness. These facts only confirm the presumption under Article 1602 of the New Civil Code that the contract, Exhibit 3, executed by Epifania Aguilar in favor of Ciriaca Santos was in reality an equitable mortgage, not a sale with right of repurchase.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. No costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Marquez v. Valencia, 77 Phil. 783, 787.

2. Bacordo v. Alcantara, L-20080, July 30, 1965.

3. See report of the Code Commission, pp. 61-63.

4. Casabar v. Sino Cruz, L-6882, Dec. 29, 1954.




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






August-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-24012 & L-24040 August 9, 1965 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19807 August 10, 1965 - AGUSTIN O. CASENAS v. DIONISIO CABIGUEN

  • G.R. No. L-20170 August 10, 1965 - BERT R. BAGANO v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17022 August 14, 1965 - SOLIS & YARISANTOS v. LIBERATO SALVADOR, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18833 August 14, 1965 - HONESTO ALVAREZ, ET AL. v. PEDRO K. ESPIRITU

  • G.R. No. L-19072 August 14, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. L-19598 August 14, 1965 - ILUMINADA SANTIAGO, ET AL v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19940 August 14, 1965 - FERNANDEZ KIDPALOS v. BAGUIO GOLD MINING CO.

  • G.R. No. L-20124 August 14, 1965 - NELITA MORENO VDA. DE BACALING v. GSIS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20735 August 14, 1965 - GLICERIA C. LIWANAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-20806-07 August 14, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO DAYDAY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20986 August 14, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20844 August 14, 1965 - ANGELITA F. RIVERA v. LORETO LUCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-21014 August 14, 1965 - PHIL. FARMING CORP. LTD. v. ALEJANDRO LLANOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21506 August 14, 1956

    FELICISIMA MANUBAY v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16903 August 31, 1965 - MANILA PENCIL CO., INC., ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17517 August 31, 1965 - ESTEFANIA PISALBON, ET AL v. ENRIQUE BALMOJA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18087 August 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO A. CONSIGNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18156 August 31, 1965 - MAXIMO BAQUIRAN v. HON. WENCESLAO ORTEGA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18404 August 31, 1965 - CESAR LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION VDA. DE OPINION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18786 August 31, 1965 - ROMAN F. DIONISIO v. SOCORRO FRANCISCO VDA. DE DIONISIO

  • G.R. No. L-19207 August 31, 1965 - MARSMAN & CO., INC., ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO SYQUIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19382 August 31, 1965 - FILOMENA ABELLANA DE BACAYO v. GAUDENCIA FERRARIS DE BORROMEO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19445 August 31, 1965 - CIR v. BISHOP OF THE MISSIONARY DIST. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19766 August 31, 1965 - FERMIN DE LA VICTORIA, ET AL. v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19922 August 31, 1965 - ERNESTO CLOMA, ET AL v. AGUINALDO INDUSTRIES CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20290 August 31, 1965 - IN RE: PANTALEON SIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20469 August 31, 1965 - PEDRO C. PASTORAL v. MUTUAL SEC. INS. CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20482 August 31, 1965 - IN RE: SATURNINO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20491 August 31, 1965 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MFTG. CO., INC. v. NAT. ADMI. OF REG’L. OFF. No. 2, Dept. of Labor, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20612 August 31, 1965 - FELIX A. YUBOCO, ET AL v. JOSE L. MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20630 August 31, 1965 - C. N. HODGES, ET AL v. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20685 August 31, 1965 - CATALINA VDA. DE VISMANOS, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20901 August 31, 1965 - CIRIACA SANTOS v. TEODORICA DUATA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20998 August 31, 1965 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORP. v. DEMETRIA OQUERIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21186 August 31, 1965 - ZOSIMO ARROYO v. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22221 August 31, 1965 - PARKE, DAVIS & CO. v. DOCTORS’ PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22425 August 31, 1965 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v. NICOLAS L. CUENCA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23476 August 31, 1965 - ARISTOTLE TUASON v. HON. CALIXTO O. ZALDIVAR