Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > January 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22968 January 31, 1968 - BENEDICTO BALUYOT, ET AL. v. EULOGIO E. VENEGAS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22968. January 31, 1968.]

BENEDICTO BALUYOT, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EULOGIO E. VENEGAS, Defendant-Appellant.

Vicente M. Magpoc for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Filemon S. Trinidad, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CONTRACTS; SALES; PACTO DE RETRO SALES; REPURCHASE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF TEN (10) YEARS; ILLEGALITY OF STIPULATION. — The contract here was executed in July, 1951. The option or right to repurchase was sought to be exercised twelve (12) years thereafter, or in 1963. Indeed, by express agreement it could not have been exercised except "after the expiration of the period of ten (10) years from October 1, 1951. Such a stipulation is not legally feasible because it is prohibited by article 1606, which limits the period for repurchase, in case there be an agreement, to the maximum of ten years from the date of the contract. In other words, the right to repurchase in the present case did not even arise, since by the time it was supposed to begin it was already interdicted by the law.

2. ID.; OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM CONTRACT; ITS OBLIGATORY FORCE. — While the contracting parties are free to establish any claims or conditions they may deem advisable, the same must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL AND ERROR, PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY NOT BE PLEADED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL. — The defense in this case is in the nature of prescription of action and consequently may not be pleaded for the first time on appeal, as defendant does in this case. However, Article 1606 of the Civil Code concerning the period of repurchase is not a statute of limitation. It is a rule of substantive law which goes into the validity of the period agreed upon, and requires no affirmative plea in the answer to be applicable.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Plaintiffs are the heirs of Crisanto Baluyot, who in life sold a parcel of land to defendant Eulogio E. Venegas. The sale, executed on July 24, 1951, contains the following provision for repurchase:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"3. That the parties hereto stipulated that at anytime after the expiration of the period of ten (10) years to be computed from October 1, 1951, the Vendor, his heirs or successors-in-interest has the option and priority to purchase the aforedescribed parcel of land for the same consideration of P4,000.00,

"4. That the Vendee hereby accept and agrees with the conditions and terms of this sale."cralaw virtua1aw library

On July 18, 1963 plaintiffs commenced this action in the Court of First Instance of Bataan to compel defendant to reconvey the land to them pursuant to the contractual provision aforequoted, alleging that previous offers on their part to exercise the right therein granted had proven unavailing.

The court a quo rendered judgment for plaintiffs and ordered defendant to execute the corresponding deed of conveyance upon payment of P4,000. Defendant was further ordered to pay attorney’s fees in the sum of P500.

In this appeal defendant stands squarely on the proposition that the stipulation in the contract giving the vendor the "option" to purchase back the land is void and contrary to law, particularly Article 1606 of the Civil Code. This article reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 1606. The right referred to in article 1601, in the absence of an express agreement, shall last four years from the date of the contract.

Should there be an agreement, the period cannot exceed ten years.

However, the vendor may still exercise the right to repurchase within thirty days from the time final judgment was rendered in a civil action on the basis that the contract was a true sale with right to repurchase."cralaw virtua1aw library

The contract here was executed in July 1951. The option or right to repurchase was sought to be exercised twelve (12) years thereafter, or in 1963. Indeed by express agreement it could not have been exercised except "after the expiration of the period of ten (10) years . . . from October 1 1951." Such a stipulation is not legally feasible because it is prohibited by Article 1606, which limits the period for repurchase, in case there be an agreement, to the maximum of ten years from the date of the contract. In other words, the right to repurchase in the present case did not even arise, since by the time it was supposed to begin it was already interdicted by the law.

A similar situation was presented in the case of Santos v. Heirs of Crisostomo and Tiongson, 41 Phil. 342, where this Court said, at pages 347-348:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When the stipulation in question is examined, it will be discovered that the intention of the parties was to suppress the exercise of the right of repurchase for the full period of ten years from the date of the contract and, inferentially, to allow the exercise of that right after the expiration of ten years. In the second paragraph of article 1508 (now 1606) of the Civil Code it is in effect provided that if there should be an agreement with respect to the time of repurchase, the period shall not exceed ten years. The stipulation under consideration offends against this provision in two particulars, namely, (1) in providing that the right to repurchase may be exercised after ten years shall elapsed, and (2) in prohibiting the exercise of the same right during the whole period when, according to the statute, it might be lawfully exercised.

"The stipulation is, therefore, illicit; and the result is that the right of repurchase could in fact, under the second paragraph of article 1508 of the Civil Code, have been exercised in this case at any time after the making of the contract and prior to the expiration of ten years. The law must here control over the revealed intention of the parties.

"In what has been said we do not mean to declare that the parties to a contract of sale with pacto de retro can not under any conditions lawfully suspend the exercise of the right of repurchase. Doubtless they may do so, provided there remains an appreciable space of time for the exercise of the right within the limitation allowed by law. For instance, if it were provided that repurchase should not be effected before five nor after ten years from the date of the contract, we see no reason for supposing the stipulation to be lawful. It is different where the parties attempt totally to suppress the right during the whole period when it might lawfully be exercised."cralaw virtua1aw library

Plaintiffs stress the obligatory force of obligations arising from contract (Art. 1159 Civil Code). But the same code provides in Article 1306 that while the contracting parties are free to establish any claims or conditions they may deem advisable, the same must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

It is suggested that the defense in this case is in the nature of prescription of action and consequently may not be pleaded for the first time on appeal, as defendant does in this case. However, Article 1606 of the Civil Code concerning the period of repurchase is not a statute of limitation. It is a rule of substantive law which goes into the validity of the period agreed upon, and requires no affirmative plea in the answer to be applicable.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and the complaint is dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Dizon, J., did not take part.




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






January-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23542 January 2, 1968 - JUANA T. VDA. DE RACHO v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILAGAN

  • G.R. No. L-23988 January 7, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LEONARDO S. VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24922 January 2, 1968 - MELECIO DOREGO, ET AL. v. ARISTON PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-24108 January 3, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24190 January 8, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. RESTITUTO GALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24432 January 12, 1968 - NAZARIO EQUIZABAL v. APOLONIO G. MALENIZA

  • G.R. No. L-22294 January 12, 1968 - DIONISIA PARAMI VDA. DE CABASAG v. AMADOR P. SU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22991 January 16, 1968 - BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23293 January 16, 1968 - LUIS R. AYO, JR. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24480 January 16, 1968 - LUCRECIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22794 January 16, 1968 - RUFO QUEMUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22018 January 17, 1968 - APOLONIO GALOFA v. NEE BON SING

  • G.R. No. L-22081 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS M. CABANERO

  • G.R. No. L-22605 January 17, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23690 January 17, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-24230 January 17, 1968 - EUGENIA TORNILLA v. TEODORICA FUENTESPINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24434 January 17, 1968 - PEDRO REGANON, ET AL. v. RUFINO IMPERIAL

  • G.R. No. L-28459 January 17, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. MACARIO ASISTIO

  • G.R. No. L-22518 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ATENCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23707 January 17, 1968 - JOSE A.V. CORPUS v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA

  • G.R. No. L-26103 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. L-19255 January 18, 1968 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24707 January 18, 1968 - JOSE S. CAPISTRANO v. JUAN BOGAR

  • G.R. No. L-24946 January 18, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-23116 January 24, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO JAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24287 January 24, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-22985 January 24, 1968 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. GREGORIO CAGUIMBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18546 & L-18547 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO OPINIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19752 January 29, 1968 - LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AGUSTIN CARLOS

  • G.R. No. L-23555 January 29, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22468 January 29, 1968 - PUAHAY LAO v. DIMTOY SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24607 January 29, 1968 - TOMAS TRIA TIRONA v. CITY TREASURER OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-24795 January 29, 1968 - PEDRO JIMENEA v. ROMEO G. GUANZON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20449 January 29, 1968 - ESPERANZA FABIAN, ET AL. v. SILBINA FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28415 January 29, 1968 - ESTRELLO T. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23012 January 29, 1968 - MIGUEL CUENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968 - CITY OF MANILA v. GENERO M. TEOTICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28518 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO G. PADERNA

  • G.R. No. L-18971 January 29, 1968 - IN RE: ABUNDIO ROTAQUIO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21718 January 29, 1968 - MILAGROS F. VDA. DE FORTEZA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28392 January 29, 1968 - JOSE C. AQUINO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27268 January 29, 1968 - JUANITA JUAN-MARCELO, ET AL. v. GO KIM PAH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22145 January 30, 1968 - A. M. RAYMUNDO & CO. v. BENITO SYMACO

  • G.R. No. L-22686 January 30, 1968 - BERNARDO JOCSON, ET AL. v. REDENCION GLORIOSO

  • G.R. No. L-24073 January 30, 1968 - PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS v. REGINA GALANG VDA. DE ESPELETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27583 January 30, 1968 - MARGARITO J. LOFRANCO v. JESUS JIMENEZ, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-19565 January 30, 1968 - ESTRELLA DE LA CRUZ v. SEVERINO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-20316 January 30, 1968 - LEONCIA CABRERA DE CHUATOCO v. GREGORIO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21855 January 30, 1968 - IN RE: ANDRES SINGSON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22973 January 30, 1968 - MAMBULAO LUMBER COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22215 January 30, 1968 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. PEDRO LABAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23702 January 30, 1968 - MARIA VILLAFLOR v. ARTURO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23965 January 30, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. JOSE PERLAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-21423 January 31, 1968 - GO KIONG OCHURA, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23424 January 31, 1968 - LOURDES ARCUINO, ET AL. v. RUFINA APARIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22968 January 31, 1968 - BENEDICTO BALUYOT, ET AL. v. EULOGIO E. VENEGAS

  • G.R. No. L-24859 January 31, 1968 - PABLO R. AQUINO v. GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-25083 January 31, 1968 - JUSTINO QUETULIO, ET AL. v. NENA Q. DE LA CUESTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20387 January 31, 1968 - JESUS P. MORFE v. AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23170 January 31, 1968 - ALBINA DE LOS SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23279 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRA CUARTO v. ESTELITA DE LUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23980 January 31, 1968 - JULIA SAN BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25472 January 31, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ANGELA PURUGANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24528 January 31, 1968 - DOMINGO T. LAO v. JOSE MOYA

  • G.R. No. L-22061 January 31, 1968 - DALMACIO URTULA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27776 January 31, 1968 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-28476 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. ANATALIO REYES, ET AL.