Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 26085
ANTECEDENT FACTS
Sometime prior to the 28th day of November, 1922, the
appellants purchased of the Luzon Rice Mills, Inc., a piece or
parcel of land with the camarin located thereon, situated in
the municipality of Tarlac of the Province of Tarlac for the
price of P25,000, promising to pay therefor in three
installments. The first installment of P2,000 was due on or
before the 2d day of May, 1921; the second installment of
P8,000 was due on or before 31st day of May, 1921; the
balance of P15,000 at 12 per cent interest was due and
payable on or about the 30th day of November, 1922. One of
the conditions of that contract of purchase was that on failure
of the purchaser (plaintiffs and appellants) to pay the
balance of said purchase price or any of the installments on
the date agreed upon, the property bought would revert to
the original owner.
The payments due on the 2d and 31st of May, 1921,
amounting to P10,000 were paid so far as the record shows
upon the due dates. The balance of P15,000 due on said
contract of purchase was paid on or about the 1st day of
December, 1922, in the manner which will be explained
below. On the date when the balance of P15,000 with interest
was paid, the vendor of said property had issued to the
purchasers transfer certificate of title to said property, No.
528. Said transfer certificate of title (No. 528) was transfer
certificate of title from No. 40, which shows that said land
was originally registered in the name of the vendor on the
7th day of November, 1913.
PRESENT FACTS
On the 7th day of November, 1922 the representative of the
vendor of the property in question wrote a letter to the
Treasurer.
General Managers
they signed it. They admit they sold the property in question
with the right to repurchase it. The terms of the contract
quoted by the plaintiffs to the defendant was a "sale"
with pacto de retro, and the plaintiffs have shown no
circumstance whatever which would justify us in construing
said contract to be a mere "loan" with guaranty. In every
case in which this court has construed a contract to be a
mortgage or a loan instead of a sale with pacto de retro, it
has done so, either because the terms of such contract were
incompatible or inconsistent with the theory that said
contract
was
one
of
purchase
and
sale.
(Olino vs. Medina, supra;
Padilla vs. Linsangan, supra;
Manlagnitvs. Dy Puico, 34 Phil., 325; Rodriguez vs. Pamintuan
and De Jesus, 37 Phil., 876.)
In the case of Padilla vs. Linsangan the term employed in the
contract to indicate the nature of the conveyance of the land
was "pledged" instead of "sold". In the case of
Manlagnit vs. Dy Puico, while the vendor used to the terms
"sale and transfer with the right to repurchase," yet in said
contract he described himself as a "debtor" the purchaser as
a "creditor" and the contract as a "mortgage". In the case
of Rodriguez vs. Pamintuan and De Jesusthe person who
executed the instrument, purporting on its face to be a deed
of sale of certain parcels of land, had merely acted under a
power of attorney from the owner of said land, "authorizing
him to borrow money in such amount and upon such terms
and conditions as he might deem proper, and to secure
payment of the loan by a mortgage." In the case of Villa vs.
Santiago (38 Phil., 157), although a contract purporting to be
a deed of sale was executed, the supposed vendor remained
in possession of the land and invested the money he had
obtained from the supposed vendee in making improvements
thereon, which fact justified the court in holding that the
xxx
xxx
xxx