Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > May 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4716 May 15, 1953 - FELICISIMA DAPITON v. NICOLAS VELOSO

093 Phil 39:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4716. May 15, 1953.]

FELICISIMA DAPITON, FAUSTINO DAPITON, ASUNCION DAPITON, OLIMPIA DAPITON and MELECIO DAPITON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NICOLAS VELOSO, Defendant-Appellee.

Jovencio Borneo for Appellants.

Victoriano C. Teleron for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. WHERE THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES IS CLEARLY REVEALED IN THE CONTRACT. — Where the instrument reveals clearly the intention of the parties, as where it concerns with a sale with a right reserved by the vendor to repurchase the land sold, there is no room for doubt or interpretation as to the intent of the parties.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint; holding that the defendant is the lawful owner of the parcel of land in litigation; and directing the Register of Deeds for the province of Leyte to cancel original certificate of title No. 16923 issued by him in the name of Pedro Dapiton married to Carmen Libran, and upon payment of the fees to issue in lieu thereof another in the name of the defendant Nicolas Veloso, without costs.

The claims of the parties are stated in the stipulation of facts which reads, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

COME now the parties plaintiffs and defendant by their respective undersigned counsels and to this Honorable Court respectfully submit the following stipulation of facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That the parties plaintiffs and defendant have agreed on the following facts, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) That the land in question is registered in the name of Pedro Dapiton under Original Certificate of Title No. 16923 which is hereto attached as an integral part of this stipulation as Appendix "A" ;

(b) That the plaintiffs are the heirs in law of said Pedro Dapiton;

(c) That the land in question as described in paragraph 4 of the complaint is assessed under Tax Declaration No. 4636 for P570;

(d) That the land in question was sold with a right to repurchase by the registered owner thereof Pedro Dapiton on the 11th day of March, 1936 in favor of one Benvenuto Managbanag as evidenced by a public document there for which is hereto attached and made an integral part hereof as Appendix "B" and about which herein plaintiffs admit its authenticity and due execution;

(e) That on the 14th day of July of 1936 aforesaid Benvenuto Managbanag as vendee-a-retro of the land in question sold his rights thereover in favor of Arsenio Veloso, now deceased, under the same terms as Appendix "B," as evidenced by a public document therefor which is hereto attached and made an integral part hereof as Appendix "C" and about which herein plaintiffs hereby admit its authenticity and due execution;

(f) That the plaintiffs herein admit that neither Pedro Dapiton, now deceased, nor his heirs in law by themselves and/or by any authorized representatives have repurchased the land in question either from Benvenuto Managbanag or Arsenio Veloso within the period stipulated in aforementioned Appendices "B" and "C" until at present;

(g) That the defendant is the heir in law of Arsenio Veloso and the land in question had been allotted the defendant as his share from the estate of the late Arsenio Veloso;

(h) That the defendant by himself and or by his agents as well as by his predecessors in interest have been in the open, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the premises of the land in question since March 11, 1936 by virtue of aforementioned Appendices "B" and "C," having received the produce regularly therefrom;

(i) That the aforementioned documents, Appendices "B" and "C" have not been duly registered nor annotated at the back of Original Certificate of Title No. 16923, Appendix "A," covering the land in question;

2. That the only question at issue in the present case is whether or not the document executed by Pedro Dapiton in favor of Benvenuto Managbanag on March 11, 1936 (Appendix "B") is a conditional sale as to pass real and effective title to the land in question in favor of the successors in interest of the therein vendee-a-retro after the conditions therein have not been complied with, or whether said Appendix "B" is merely an equitable mortgage, on its face and on the tenor of the language therein contained.

The instrument which is the subject matter of the controversy reads, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Que yo, Pedro Dapiton, mayor de edad, viudo y vecino del barrio Caridad del Municipio de Baybay, Provincia de Leyte, Islas Filipinas, en consideracion a la suma da CIENTO SETENTA Y OCHO (P178.00) PESOS en moneda filipina, que me ha pagado y he recibido con mi entera satisfaccion del Sr. Benvenuto Managbanag, tambien mayor de edad, casado con Hilaria Palermo, vecino del municipio de Baybay, Leyte, I. F., por las presente,

HAGO CONSTAR:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Que vendo, cedo y traspaso en calidad de venta con pacto de retro por 5 años, a contar desde la fecha de esta escritura al mencionado Benvenuto Managbanag, sus herederos y causahabientes, la parcela de terreno secano o maizal en el barrio Caridad, sitio Hipgup, del municipio de Baybay, cuya descripcion mas detallada es como sigue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Al Norte, confina con el riachuelo sin nombre;

Al Este, con Arsenio Veloso;

Al Sur, con Arsenio Veloso y

Al Oeste, con Magdaleno Mantua;

Es conocido como Lote No. _______ y Tax No. _______

Sus mojones son los postee de cemento por la medicion Catastral;

Del que terreno soy propietario y lo adquiri por herencia de mi difunta madre, posesionando quieta y pacificamente hasta la fecha.

Hago constar tambien, que queda convenido y pactado con el mencionado Benvenuto Managbanag, sus herederos y causahabientes, que si yo lo devolviere o hiciere pagar la suma de P178.00 en o antes de 5 años, como se ha dicho arriba, el o sus representantes me otorgara una escritura de retroventa y quedara nula o de ning�n valor esta escritura, pero si trascurre dicho termino sin haberse utilizado el derecho de redencion, adquirira el caracter de absoluta esta venta o irrevocablemente consumada. Por �ltimo hago constar, que esta parcela de terreno esta libre de toda carga y gravamen y que prometo defender ahora y siempre contra las reclamaciones justas de quien las presentare.

En testimonio de lo cual, firmo la presente ante los testigos presenciales en el Municipio de Baybay, Leyte, hoy 11 de Marzo de 1936.

(Fdo.) PEDRO DAPITON

Vendedor

En presencia de:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(Fdo.) F. SOFRO

(Fdo.) MARTIN DAPITON

(The acknowledgment before a notary public follows.)

The plaintiffs cannot question now the identity of the parcel of land by claiming that it is different from the lot described in original certificate of title No. 16923 issued in the name of Pedro Dapiton, because the stipulation of facts states that it is the same parcel of land.

The instruments in the cases cited in the opinion of the trial court and in the briefs of the parties reveal the intent of the parties not to sell but just to convey the parcel of land as a security for the payment of a loan. In the case of Olino v. Medina, 13 Phil. 379, a previous creditor indorsed the documents on the parcel of land to the defendant Medina who at the request of the plaintiff furnished the money with which to redeem it; in Padilla v. Linsañgan, 19 Phil. 65, the terms "pledged" and "debt" are used in the instrument; in Cuyugan v. Santos, 34 Phil. 100, citing Lichauco v. Berenguer, 20 Phil. 12, partial payments were accepted by the vendee which is inconsistent with the idea of sale; in Manlagnit v. Sanchez, 34 Phil. 325, the word "mortgage" and three times the word "creditor" are used in the instrument; in Pamintuan v. Rodriguez Et. Al., 37 Phil., 876, the rule laid down in Cuyugan v. Santos, supra, was reiterated; in Villa v. Santiago, 38 Phil., 157, the same rule in Cuyugan v. Santos, supra, was adhered to; in Cuyugan v. Santos, 39 Phil., 970, the rule in Cuyugan v. Santos, supra, was again reiterated.

The instrument in the instant case reveals clearly the intention of the parties. It is a sale with a right reserved by the vendor to repurchase the parcel of land sold. There is no room for doubt or interpretation as to the intent of the parties 1

As to inadequacy of the price, the rule in Askay v. Cosalan, 46 Phil., 179, that mere inadequacy is not sufficient ground for the rescission or resolution of a contract when both parties were in a position to form an independent judgment concerning the transaction, and that in Manalo v. Gueco, 42 Phil., 925 which holds that the purchase price of P3,728, whereas the value of the property was estimated at P7,000, was not grossly inadequate or unconscionable to indicate that it was a mortgage and not a pacto de retro sale, are in point.

The judgment appealed from is modified thus: the plaintiffs or anyone of them who is in possession of the owner’s duplicate of original certificate of title No. 16923 are directed to surrender it to the Registrar of Deeds for the province of Leyte and the defendant to attach documentary stamps as by law provided to the notarial document executed by Pedro Dapiton on 11 March 1936 and to the other notarial document executed by Benvenuto Managbanag on 16 July 1936 in favor of Arsenio Veloso, to pay the required fees not only for the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in lieu of No. 16923 to be cancelled but also the fees for the registration of all the documents, including the order of the probate court or the extrajudicial partition or adjudication, as the case may be, of the parcel of land in favor of the defendant Nicolas Veloso, to be recorded, and the fee provided for in section 99, Act No. 496, and to show to the Registrar of Deeds that he has paid the inheritance tax. The rest of the judgment not inconsistent herewith is affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Gatmaitan v. Nepomuceno, 42 Phil. 295; Manalo v. Gueco, 42 Phil. 925; Alderete v. Amandoron, 46 Phil. 488; Tolentino v. Gonzalez, 50 Phil. 558; Villarosa v. Villamor, 53 Phil. 350; Balmori v. Sison, 45 Off. Gaz. (9th Supp.) 104; Lim v. Calaguas, 46 Off. Gaz. (11th Supp.) 247; Morales v. Ventanilla, 47 Off. Gaz. 704; 84 Phil. 459.




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






May-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5078 May 4, 1953 - LUIS FRANCISCO v. MAXIMA VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-5195 May 4, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON LIBRE, ET AL.

    093 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-3772 May 13, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAUTI LINGCUAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-5217 May 13, 1953 - VICENTE VILORIA v. ISIDORO VILORIA

    093 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-5292 May 13, 1953 - PELAGIA ARANTE v. ARCADIO ROSEL

    093 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-5331 May 13, 1953 - NG YOUNG v. ANA VILLA

    093 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-4258 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4716 May 15, 1953 - FELICISIMA DAPITON v. NICOLAS VELOSO

    093 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-4847 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS ANSANG

    093 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-5089 May 15, 1953 - JUAN MORTOS v. VICTOR ELLO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-5117 May 15, 1953 - IN RE: FRANCISCO ANG VELOSO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-5529 May 15, 1953 - FORTUNATA RAMENTO, ET AL. v. GUADALUPE COSUANGCO

    093 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. L-5594 May 15, 1953 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOC.

    093 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-6165 May 15, 1953 - ISABELO CENTENO, v. DOLORES GALLARDO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-3708 May 18, 1953 - ROYAL L. RUTTER v. PLACIDO J. ESTEBAN

    093 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-4880 May 18, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-4565 May 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO RAIZ

    093 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-5963 May 20, 1953 - LEYTE-SAMAR SALES CO., ET AL. v. SULPICIO V. CEA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-4376 May 22, 1953 - ASSOCIATION OF CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD, ET AL.

    093 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-4572 May 22, 1953 - DOLORITO M. FELICIANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    093 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-5029 May 22, 1953 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-5829 May 22, 1953 - JOSE NONO v. RUPERTO NEQUIA y OTROS

    093 Phil 120

  • G.R. Nos. L-4517-20 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO ROMERO

    093 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. L-4628 May 25, 1953 - VICENTE M. JOVEN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    093 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-4641 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs.PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    093 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-4888 May 25, 1953 - JOSE MERZA v. PEDRO LOPEZ PORRAS

    093 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-5086 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENTURA LANAS

    093 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. L-5236 May 25, 1953 - JOSE TORRES v. HERMENEGILDA SICAT VDA. DE MORALES

    093 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-5677 May 25, 1953 - LA CAMPANA COFFEE FACTORY, INC., ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-6108 May 25, 1953 - FRANCISCO DE BORJA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-6528 May 25, 1953 - MUNICIPALITY OF BOCAUE, ET AL. v. SEVERINO MANOTOK, ET AL.

    093 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-4478 May 27, 1953 - VICENTE DY SUN v. RICARDO BRILLANTES, ET AL.

    093 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-5127 May 27, 1953 - PEDRO BATUNGBAKAL v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

    093 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-5145 May 27, 1953 - FRANCISCO BASTIDA, ET AL. v. DY BUNCIO & CO. INC.

    093 Phil 195

  • G.R. Nos. L-5363 & L-5364 May 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAIWAN LUCAS

    093 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-5554 May 27, 1953 - BENITO CHUA KUY v. EVERRETT STEAMSHIP CORPORATION

    093 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-4177 May 29, 1953 - IN RE: YAP CHIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-4433 May 29, 1953 - SALUD PATENTE v. ROMAN OMEGA

    093 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-4629 May 29, 1953 - JUAN D. SALVADOR, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO LOCSIN

    093 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-4645 May 29, 1953 - LORENZO GAUIRAN v. RUFINO SAHAGUN

    093 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-5184 May 29, 1953 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

    093 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-5282 May 29, 1953 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-5296 May 29, 1953 - GREGORIO ENRIQUEZ v. DONATO PEREZ

    093 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-5345 May 29, 1953 - COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FINANCE CORP. v. EUTIQUIANO GARCIA

    093 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5406 May 29, 1953 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. v. TALISAY EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS’ UNION

    093 Phil 251

  • G.R. Nos. L-5426-28 May 29, 1953 - RAMON JOAQUIN v. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO

    093 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-5535 May 29, 1953 - U. S. COMMERCIAL CO. v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    093 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-5567 May 29, 1953 - JUAN EVANGELISTA v. GUILLERMO MONTAÑO

    093 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-5601 May 29, 1953 - LEON VELEZ v. VICENTE VARELA

    093 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-5640 May 29, 1953 - ESTEBAN G. LAPID v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. L-5783 May 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASSOCIATION

    093 Phil 288

  • Adm. Case No. 72 May 30, 1953 - PLACIDO MANALO v. PEDRO N. GAN

    093 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4758 May 30, 1953 - CALTEX [PHIL. ] INC. v. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

    093 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. L-4887 May 30, 1953 - UY MATIAO & CO., INC. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

    093 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-5301 May 30, 1953 - LOURDES T. PAGUIO v. MARIA ROSADO DE RUIZ

    093 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-6121 May 30, 1953 - MANUEL S. GAMALINDA v. JOSE V. YAP

    093 Phil 310