Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

027 Phil 631:



[G.R. No. 7287. March 29, 1914. ]

PEDRO MONTIERO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA, opponent-appellant.

[G.R. No. 7288. March 29, 1914]

SEVERA PONIENTE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA, opponent-appellant.

W. A. Kincaid and Thos. L. Hartigan for Appellant.

Singson, Ledesma & Lim for Appellees.


1. VENDOR AND PURCHASER; REGISTRATION OF DIED OF "PACTO DE RETRO." — The stipulations for the sale of certain property recorded in two notarial instruments drawn up and executed on the same date having been held from their nature, spirit, terms, and conditions to constitute a pacto de retro, the vendor thereof is unquestionably entitled to register the same, with express statement of the purchaser’s right thereto. (Act No. 1108; Civil Code, arts. 1507-1520; Mortera v. Martinez, 14 Phil. Rep., 541.)



Appeals raised through bills of exceptions by the opponent from the single judgment rendered on April 28, 1911, in cases Nos. 4767 and 4768, whereby the judges of the Court of Land Registration, Charles H. Smith, Jesse George, Pedro Concepcion, and James A. Ostrand, sustained their previous judgment of December 22, merely indicating that the property concerned was sold under pacto de retro to the opponent for the sum specified in such previous judgment; and therefore denying the motion made by counsel for the opponent, Virginia Salgado.

In the said judgment of December 22 the Honorable Jesse George, judge, ordered the registration of the sic parcels of land, the subject matter of case No. 4768, in the name of Severa Poniente, and of the four parcels of land, the subject matter of case No. 4767, in the name of Pedro Monterio, subject to a mortgage for the sum of P2,500 in favor of Virginia Salgado Acuña.

On June 27, 1908, Pedro Montiero requested, in case No. 4767, inscription in the property registry, in accordance with law, of four parcels of land situated in the barrio of Buhanginan, of the pueblo of Lilio, Laguna, the respective situation, boundaries, and are of which land were set forth in the written application, in conformity with the technical description and plan accompanying the same, which estate belonged to him absolutely, and at the last assessment was appraised at $960 United States currency, having been acquired by him through inheritance from his parents, Esteban Monterio and Sotera Consul; that there was no encumbrance thereon, or any person who had any right or share therein, except that he had sold it under pacto de retro to Benito Javier.

On April 27, 1908, Pedro Montiero, in representation of his wife, Severa Poniente, applied, in case No. 4768, for the registration of a parcel of land situated in the barrio of Buhanginan, of the pueblo of Lilio, and also of five other parcels of land in Cabuhayan, of the pueblo of Nagcarlan, Laguna, the location, boundaries, and area of which, respectively, are set forth in detail in the written application, in conformity with the technical description and plans thereto attached; that these parcels had been at the last assessment appraised at $830 United States currency, and had been acquired by her by inheritance from her mother, Casimira Artita; that there was no encumbrance thereon, or any person who had any right or share therein, except that she had sold them under pacto de retro to Benito Javier.

Javier opposed the foregoing applications in both cases, wherefore the judge of the land court refused the registration requested; but inasmuch as the applicant spouses afterwards repurchased the said parcels of land, the opponent, Benito Javier, withdrew his opposition and asked that titles be issued to the applications as they had requested.

At this stage of the proceedings, counsel for Virginia Salgado, by writings of October 28, 1910, presented in the two aforesaid cases, set forth that his client had acquired by purchase from the spouses Pedro Montiero and Severa Poniente the ten parcels of land, inscription whereof was requested in both cases, and his petition was accompanied by the muniments of title, consisting of a deed of sale executed by the said spouses on October 25, 1910, in behalf of the petitioner, Virginia Salgado, and ratified before a notary public; wherefore he asked for inscription of the lands in the name of Virginia Salgado, and issuance to her of the corresponding title; and in connection with this petition, the court ordered, on November 17, that the petitioner, Monterio, and the opponent, Javier, state before the same, on the morning of December 20, 1910, why the lands concerned should not be registered in the name of Virginia Salgado, as she requested, further providing that should they fail to appear on the day, and at the hour and place specified, they would be declared in general default, Virginia Salgado’s application would be granted, and they would be forever estopped from impugning the same and the decree that would be issued.

On December 22, 1910, the single judgment aforementioned was rendered in both cases, and, in view of the exception entered by counsel for Virginia Salgado and of his motion for a rehearing, the court en banc on April 28 decided the opponent’s claim y a single ruling in both cases, from which decision an exception was taken, and the corresponding bills of exception were presented for the two cases, approved, and forwarded to the clerk of this court.

This case concerns inscription in the property registry of ten parcels of land owned, six of them, by the married woman Severa Poniente, represented by her husband, Pedro Monterio, and the other four by the husband named himself. The first question which arises for solution, before proceedings to determine whether the registration applied for should be granted, is whether the said parcels of land really were or were not sold by the applicant spouses to the opponent, Virginia Salgado, and if so, what the conditions and nature of the sale were, in order to decide whether it is proper to register the property in question in the names of the said Pedro Montiero and Severa Poniente, respectively.

When these two persons applied to the Court of Land Registration for the registration of their respective estates, eight parcels of the said land had been sold under pacto de retro to Benito Javier, who consequently duly opposed the registration sought; but as soon as the land had been repurchased and Benito Javier had received the greater part of the money, P2,500, which the applicants has obtained from Virginia Salgado, he withdrew his opposition and even asked that the titles be issued to the said spouses; and when it was thought that the case would be continued in the Court of Land Registration, Virginia Salgado appeared to oppose the registration requested, alleging that she was the owner of the land and asking that title thereto be issued in her name.

It is an unquestionable fact that Virginia Salgado, upon furnishing to the spouses Poniente and Montiero the money needed by them for the repurchases of the lands sold to Benito Javier, required those spouse to execute in her behalf two instruments on the same date, October 25, 1910. In one of them, entitled an absolute sale, the spouses Pedro Monterio and Severa Poniente declare that they sell and convey forever to Virginia Salgado and to her successors in interest, in consideration of the sum of P2,700, the ten parcels of land mentioned, repurchases from Benito Javier. In the other instrument, entitled a conditional sale, Virginia Salgado, as owner of the said ten parcels of land, binds herself to sell them to the said spouses, Montiero and Poniente, in accordance with the comprised between July 1 and December 31, 1925; and that, should the said period elapse without these spouses having exercised their right, they would lose all right of action derived from the present agreement; that the said ten parcels of land should be sold without division; that the price should be the sum of P2,700, the value of all the improvements and crops on the land on the day of sale, according to expert appraisal, and the amount of all the necessary and needful expenses, including documentation; that, in case the owner should need to sell the said lands, she would have to record the agreement, to insure respect for the rights of the spouses Montiero and Poniente; and that, after the lapse of six months from the date of the instrument, October 25, 1910, the said spouses might negotiate with Virginia Salgado in regard to the sale and to the right conceded them under that agreement.

In order to estimate and define the character, nature, and conditions of the two contracts contained in either instrument, as well as to determine the intention of the contracting parties in executing them, the stipulations made by these parties in both documents, which must be held to be one single contract by an between the same parties regarding the conveyance of the ten parcels of land under the conditions of the sale, must be examined and weighed together. Said contracts cannot be viewed as separate and independent, for they both constitute a single contract of sale with the engagement to resell the land, the subject matter of the stipulations, within the term, in the manner and under the conditions set forth in one of said instruments. The private document of December 1, 1910, presented at the trial and not impugned as false, virtually completes the contents of the two instruments executed on the same date by and between the applicants, Monterio and Poniente, and Virginia Salgado, who furnished the money wherewith to repurchase from Benito Javier eight of the ten parcels of land in question.

The Court of Land Registration en banc, composed of four judges, after consideration of the contents of both instruments, with due regard of the spirit and terms of the contracts, of the manifest intention of the contracting parties, as disclosed by the literal text of both documents, and also of the statements made under oath by Pedro Montiero, not denied or rebutted at the hearing by either Virginia Salgado and her attorney, who was the very notary that authenticated the said two instruments and interpreted their contents to the contracting spouses, who did not know or understand Spanish, held that the contract made by and between the parties who executed the aforementioned two instrument, drawn up on the same date, was one of sale with pacto de retro, and that the stipulation with respect to the excess of the terms of ten years fixed for the repurchase of the said ten parcels of land was null and void, inasmuch as, pursuant to article 1508 of the Civil Code, in case of an express agreement the period shall not exceed ten years.

Under the aforementioned hypothesis that the conveyance in question was effected under pacto de retro it must be determined whether the two spouses who, according to the said instruments, sold the ten parcels of land in litigation are entitled to apply for registration thereof on their names, once the applicants’ ownership of the parcels has been unquestionably established.

In decision No. 5096, rendered in the case of Mortera v. Martinez (14 Phil. Rep., 541), the following syllabus

"1. Articles 1507 to 1520 of the Civil Code have not been appealed, either expressly or by implication, by subsection (c) of section 6 of Act No. 1108 of the Philippine Commission, and therefore the well-known from of contract of sale with pacto de retro still subsists.

"2. Subsection (e) of section 6 of Act No. 1108 authorizes the registration of instruments of sale with pacto de retro in the registry of property, at the request of the person selling the reality, under the same conditions and in the same manner as mortgages in loan contracts secured by mortgage; but said law has not considered the latter contract as being the same as that of sale with pacto de retro, for the reason that the two are entirely different in nature and character. (Art. 1507 et seq., arts. 1857 to 1862 and 1874 et seq., Civil Code; Villarruel v. Encarnacion, 5 Phil. Rep., 360.)

"3. The provision which authorizes the registration of an instrument of sale with pacto de retro at the request of the seller of the realty is not incompatible with the articles of the Civil Code that deal with such contract; according to article 1510, an action to enforce the redemption of the property sold may be maintained against every possessor who derived his right from the purchaser with pacto de retro, for the reason that said action is real in character, and not merely personal; therefore, the right of the owner of the realty coexists with the of the purchasers, and the document may be entered in the registry."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence, according to the principle laid down in the aforecited decision, based on an express provision of law, the vendor of real property under pacto de retro may apply for registration thereof, provided, of course, that he record the purchaser’s right thereto.

Accepting in all other respects the grounds of the judgment appealed from, and deeming the foregoing to be a refutation of the errors assigned to the said judgment by the appellant, the same should be and is hereby affirmed, with the costs against the Appellant.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson and Moreland, JJ., concur.

Trent, J., dissents.

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 :

March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18


    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39


    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134


    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914


    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258


    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978

  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393


    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447