Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > January 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 4710 January 26, 1909 - LEON AGCAOILI v. BENITO ACASIO

012 Phil 602:



[G.R. No. 4710. January 26, 1909. ]

LEON AGCAOILI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BENITO ACASIO, Defendant-Appellee.

Nemesio Bonoan, for Appellant.

Julio Adiarte, for Appellee.


1. REALTY; SALE WITH RIGHT OF REPURCHASE. — Although the period specified for the repurchase of the property, as specified in a contract of sale with a right to repurchase, has expired, the purchaser may still sell to the vendor on such terms as the parties may agree upon.



The plaintiff brought this action in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Norte to recover the possession of three tracts of land admitted to be in the possession of the defendant. Judgment was entered in the court below in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff has appealed.

On the 16th day of January, 1884, Maria Acasio, the aunt of the defendant, was the owner of the property in question. On that day she executed and delivered a document to the plaintiff in which she said that she delivered the land to the plaintiff in order that he might work it and take the rents and profits thereof until she paid him 20 pesos which she owed him. It does not appear that Maria Acasio ever paid this debt, and on the first day of April, 1891, the land still being in the possession of the plaintiff, he delivered it to the defendant and wrote upon the document above-mentioned the following

"NOTE. — This document was delivered to Benito Acasio on account of his having paid the amount above set forth.

In witness whereof I subscribe my name this 1st day of April, 1891.

(Signed) "LEON AGCAOILI."cralaw virtua1aw library

He testified at the trial, however, that the agreement between him and the defendant was to the effect that he, the plaintiff, should have a right to redeem the land from the defendant by returning to the defendant the 20 pesos. He further testified that on the 2d day of May, 1901, he did return to the defendant the 20 pesos and that the defendant then delivered to him the possession of the land; that from that time he remained in possession and cultivated the land until 1906, and that he paid the taxes thereon. In 1906 the defendant again entered upon the land and is now in possession thereof.

There is no evidence to contradict the testimony of the plaintiff to the effect that the land was delivered to him in 1901 by the defendant and that he remained in possession thereof until 1906. His testimony as to the nature of the contract made between himself and the defendant in 1891 is corroborated by the testimony of three witnesses who state that in 1905 they were present when the defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiff a document called a counter-receipt, w herein it was stated that the plaintiff had delivered the money to the defendant and had asked for the return of the document and that the defendant had stated that he could not return it because it had been burned and for that reason he made this additional document. There was nothing to contradict the testimony of these three witnesses except the bare statement of the defendant that he did not go in 1905 to the house where the three witnesses testified that the document was executed. A continuance was granted to enable the plaintiff to produce this counter-receipt, which he did on the day to which-the case was thus continued. It purports to be signed by the defendant and the three witnesses who testified that they had so signed it and its contents are in exact conformity with what was testified to by these witnesses. It is suggested by the defendant that the document was not exhibited to the witnesses and they did not identify their signatures. This is true; but we think the contract evidenced by this receipt was sufficiently proven.

With these facts appearing, the judgment for the defendant can not be sustained. It is not important to determine exactly the nature of the interest which the plaintiff had in the land in 1891 when he turned it over to the defendant, because it is established to our satisfaction that whatever interest the defendant ever acquired in the land he acquired by the contract then made between himself and the plaintiff and that this interest, thus acquired, the defendant, after the lapse of ten years, and in 1901, transferred again to the plaintiff, thereby divesting himself of all right or claim to the property. It is said by the defendant in his brief that the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant in 1891 constituted a sale with the right to repurchase; that no time having been fixed for the repurchase it must, according to the law then in force, have been made within four years, and that period having elapsed without any repurchase, the title became vested absolutely in the defendant. Even if this claim were true, it would in no way benefit the defendant, for although he were the absolute owner of the property in 1901, he had a perfect right to deal with it as he saw fit. He had a right to resell the land to the plaintiff on such terms as the two might agree upon. That the parties did agree upon a resale, and that such resale was in fact made, we think is fully established by the evidence.

The judgment of the court below is reversed and judgment is entered for the plaintiff as prayed for in his complaint, with the costs of the first instance. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

January-1909 Jurisprudence                 


    012 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 4001 January 5, 1909 - SILVESTRA LUBRICO v. LEONA ARBADO

    012 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 4393 January 8, 1909 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS v. CITY OF MANILA

    012 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 4648 January 8, 1909 - CLAUS SPRECKELS, ET AL. v. D. H. WARD, ET AL.

    012 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 4762 January 8, 1909 - ALBERTO LAGAHIT v. SIMEON NENGASCA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 423


    012 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 5120 January 8, 1909 - TIMOTEO GONZALEZ v. GEORGE N. WOLFE

    012 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 4680 January 9, 1909 - ROBERTO MORENO v. AGO CHI

    012 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 4350 January 11, 1909 - MONICA CASON v. F. W. RICKARDS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 4627 January 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO QUE-QUENCO

    012 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 4634 January 11, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. UY-KUE-BENG

    012 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 4089 January 12, 1909 - ARTURO PELAYO v. MARCELO LAURON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 4604 January 12, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA

    012 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 4849 January 12, 1909 - TIMOTEO CASTRO, ET AL. v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 4596 January 13, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN FORTALEZA

    012 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 4810 January 13, 1909 - VICTORIA GARCIA v. B. MONTAGUE

    012 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 4495 January 14, 1909 - TY SUE, ET AL. v. JOHN S. HORD

    012 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 5050 January 14, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GO-SIACO

    012 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 4461 January 16, 1909 - MACARIO SAMSON v. VICENTE SALVILLA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 3187 January 19, 1909 - MICHAEL SANDELIZ v. PAZ REYES

    012 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 3966 January 19, 1909 - JUAN LEANO I, ET AL. v. AGAPITO LEANO

    012 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 3988 January 19, 1909 - GUILLERMO YACAPIN v. JULIAN JIBERO

    012 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 4563 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. GARINO SORIANO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 4676 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO TOGONON

    012 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 4720 January 19, 1909 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    012 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 4750 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO F. GUTIERREZ

    012 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 4766 January 19, 1909 - ANG QUIAN CIEG, ET AL. v. JUAN TE CHICO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 4915 January 19, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. VY CAN SIU

    012 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 5049 January 19, 1909 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 4765 January 20, 1909 - ANG SENG QUEN, ET AL. v. JUAN TE CHICO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 4291 January 21, 1909 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. CUSTODIO DAUDEN

    012 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 5101 January 21, 1909 - TEODORO M. BEECH v. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    012 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 4721 January 23, 1904


    012 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 4813 January 23, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO SIAMSICO

    012 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 3714 January 26, 1909 - ISABELO M. MONTANO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

    012 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 3783 January 26, 1909 - DAMASO SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    012 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 4194 January 26, 1909 - KO BENGCO v. SHERIFF OF THE PROVINCE OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 4374 January 26, 1909 - RUFINA ROCES v. FRANCISCO JALANDONI, ET AL.

    012 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 4710 January 26, 1909 - LEON AGCAOILI v. BENITO ACASIO

    012 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 4715 January 26, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO CHIA-TUA

    012 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 4474 January 27, 1909 - BERNABE ALCERA v. SATURNINO NERY

    012 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 4706 January 27, 1909 - RAMON PAPA v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    012 Phil 613


    012 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4725 January 28, 1909 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    012 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 4832 January 28, 1909 - MUÑOZ & CO. v. JOHN S. HORD

    012 Phil 624


    012 Phil 639