ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 128334. June 28, 1999]
VIVENCIO MARASIGAN, et al. vs. CA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 28, 1999.
G.R. No. 128334 (Vivencio Marasigan and Norma Marasigan vs. Court of Appeals, Vivencio Magsino and Matea Magsino.)
For consideration of this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 6, 1996 for containing conclusions of fact and law not supported by the records and the evidence; and which contradict settled jurisprudence on the matter.
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
On November 14, 1986, herein petitioners, the spouses Vivencio and Norma Marasigan, filed a complaint against Vivencio and Matea Magsino, alleging that on March 25, 1985, they obtained a loan of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) from private respondents because they were in dire need of money; that they offered to execute a real estate mortgage over their property consisting of a parcel of land of 307 square meters and the improvements thereon located at Poblacion, Bauan, Batangas to secure payment of said loan; that they were instead asked to execute a deed of sale ("Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa") in favor of private respondents, with the secret understanding that they could repurchase the land within one (1) year with 20% interest; that subsequently, they were made to sign a document entitled "Kasunduan sa Naging Bilihan ng Lupa at Bahay na Mabibiling Uli ng Nagbiling May-Ari" and were allowed to remain on their house erected on the subject land; that a third document was executed by them on May 24, 1985 which specified the amount of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P120,000.00) as the purchase price, and, that they had been offering to redeem the land for the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) which was the original and true amount of the loan, but the respondents repeatedly refused and insisted on the amount of P120,000.00. Hence, they filed a complaint for declaration as void ab initio of the three documents for being "usurious, unconscionable, immoral, illegal, and not expressing the true intent of the parties," with a prayer for payment of damages and attorney's fees. 1 [Rollo, pp. 25-26.]
On October 20, 1994, after trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 3, rendered a Decision dismissing petitioners' complaint. Said court held:
x x x.
This Court is of the opinion that the selling price of the lot in
question was P120,000.00 with right of repurchase, not P15,000.00
as stated in the Deed of Sale (Exhibit "A"), based on the following
factual circumstances:
1.
Immediately after or simultaneous to the execution of the Deed of Sale on March
25, 1985, the parties executed a private document (Exhibit "I")
stating that the consideration is P120,000.00. This novated Exhibit A
and shows the true intention of the parties on the actual price. The execution
of Exhibit 1 was witnessed by Geronimo Hernandez, who affixed his signature
thereto.
x x x.
5. Exhibit "A" was further novated when the parties executed Exhibit "B" in the afternoon of March 25, 1985, to reflect thereon that the transaction was one of sale with right of repurchase within one-year and to allow the defendants to stay on the land for the same period. The effort to hide the true sales price resulted in the ommission (sic) to state anew the same in Exhibit "B", a notarized document.
6. The transaction previously entered into between the parties was formally novated by their execution of Exhibit "C" on May 24, 1985 before another Notary Public Atty. Dionisio Sulit wherein the consideration was stated as P120,000.00 with right of repurchase for one-year. Plaintiff Norma Marasigan admitted that the contents of the document were read to her and understood the same before signing it (sic). The authenticity of this document was admitted by plaintiff's counsel in court (Manifestation dated November 4, 1991). 2 [Id., 59-60.]
Petitioner spouses appealed to the Court of Appeals. On September 6, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dismissing the appeal and affirming the trial court's decision.3 [Id., at 36.]
Hence, this petition wherein
petitioners alleged that the respondent court erred in concluding: 1) that the
transaction entered into by and between the petitioners and the private
respondents was a contract of sale with right to repurchase and not one of
equitable mortgage; and, 2) that the consideration therefor was P120,000.00
and not P15,000.00.
Petitioners contend that there are even assuming respondent court was correct in finding that the transaction was one of sale with right to repurchase, it nevertheless erred in holding that their right to repurchase had expired. Petitioners maintain that that should be allowed to repurchase the property as respondents have yet to consolidate their alleged ownership over the same.
We find no merit in petitioner's contentions.
In a recent case,4 [Ignacio vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 242 (1995).] this Court had occasion to rule that when the terms of a contract clearly show that it is one of sale with right to repurchase, it must be interpreted according to its literal sense, and held to be such a contract. A perusal of the records in the instant case shows that the contract in question is clearly one of sale with right to repurchase; and that the parties were fully aware of the nature and consequences of said transaction they had entered into. Contrary to her claim that she just signed the documents without knowing the contents thereof, petitioner Norma Marasigan testified as follows:
Q�������� In the last hearing you testified you will bring to court the original copy of the document "Kasunduan Nagbibigay Liwanag Sa Bilihan Ng Lupa" dated May 24, 1985, did you bring that document?
WITNESS:
A�������� Yes, sir. It is in the possession of my counsel.
Q�������� Now, did you sign that document?
A�������� Yes, sir.
Q�������� Who else signed that document?
A�������� My husband, sir.
Q�������� Aside from your husband, who signed this document?
A�������� And the spouses Magsino, sir.
Q�������� Where was this document prepared?
A�������� At the office of Atty. Dionisio Sulit, sir.
Q�������� Did you read that document before signing the same?
A�������� They were the ones who read the contents of the document, sir.
Q�������� When you said they were the ones who read it, did you understand or do you understand the contents of the document when it was read to you?
A�������� Yes, sir.
Q�������� What was that document all about?
ATTY. BOONGALING:
May we request the witness to speak a little louder because it is noisy outside?
WITNESS:
A�������� A deed of sale and another deed of sale that can be repurchased, sir. Deed of sale with the word repurchase, "Mabibili muli"
ATTY. ABRATIGUE:
Q�������� And did you come to know the amount contained in that document which according to you is a document to repurchase again the property?
A�������� Yes, sir.
Q�������� How much?
A��������
One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P120,000.00),
sir.
5
[Rollo, pp. 64-65.]
(underscoring
supplied)
It is clear from the
above-quoted testimony that the petitioners knew fully well that they were
entering a Contract of Sale with Right to Repurchase. To ascertain the intent
of the parties, the Court should look at their contemporaneous and subsequent
acts.6
[Rapanut vs. CA, 246 SCRA 323
(1995).] Thus, respondent court was correct when it held that any doubt
as to the intention of the parties was definitely clarified by the execution of
the third document entitled "Kasunduang Nagbibigay Liwanag sa Bilihan ng
Lupa" dated May 24, 1985, wherein it is categorically stated that the
purchase price of the subject property is One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P120,000.00).7
[Rollo, p. 54.]
Moreover, as noted by both the trial and appellate courts, even the witnesses of petitioners, namely, Quintin Ilagan and Marcial Karingal, who were present during the execution of the documents testified that they knew the transaction to be one of sale with right to repurchase and not equitable mortgage.8 [Id., at 34, 57.]
Finally, it has bee sufficiently
established that none of the circumstances under Article 1602 of the Civil Code
which create the presumption that a transaction is one of equitable mortgage is
present in this case. For one, the purchase price was P120,000.00 and
not P15,000.00 as claimed by petitioners. Secondly, while petitioners
retained possession of the subject property, their possession was by virtue of
a separate agreement subsequent to the execution of the deed of sale, and only
upon the insistent request of petitioners. As for petitioners' contention that
they should be allowed to repurchase the subject property, we find this to be
baseless. We quote with approval respondent court's findings on this point:
Lastly, plaintiff-appellants contend that their right to redeem the
subject property has not yet lapsed because Article 1606 of the Civil Code
provides that 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."
As explained by Tolentino, this provision is applicable when the nature and
character of the transaction, whether as a pacto de retro or as an
equitable mortgage was put in issue before the court. (V. Tolentino, Civil Code
of the Philippines, p. 146) In the present case, the nature and character of
the transaction clearly indicated a pacto de retro sale, and the
plaintiffs-appellants conceded that it is so in their complaint, although Norma
Marasigan claims that she signed the document because she needed the money. The
only issue before the lower court was whether the repurchase price was P15,000.00
or P120,000.00. Article 1606 of the Civil Code therefore cannot be
applied in favor of the plaintiffs-appellants in this case. The period to redeem
as specified in the contract had lapsed when this case was filed.
9
[Rollo, pp. 35-36.]
In view of the foregoing, the Court hereby resolves to DENY the petition for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
