sales # 36 & 39

3
Flores vs. So Facts: On February 27, 1950, Valentin Gallano sold his parcel of coconut and rice land situated in Matnog, Sorsogon to Alfonso Flores with a right of repurchase within four (4) years from the date of the sale, for a price of P2,550.00. Then on February 26, 1958, Gallano sold in an absolute manner the same land to Johnson So for the price of P5,000.00. On March 6, 1958 Alfonso executed affidavit of consolidation of ownership and its subsequent registration in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Sorsogon. Johnson So filed an action for specific performance before the Court of First Instance against Alfonso Flores to effect the redemption of the land. Johnson So contends that the Pacto de Retro Sale a mere mortgage to secure a loan. The lower court decided in favor of Johnson So, holding that the contract is indeed a contract of sale of a parcel of land with the reservation in favor of the vendor a retro of the right to repurchase, however the registration of Alfonso did not make his ownership over the land in question absolute and indefeasible because of non-compliance with Articles 1606 and 1607 of the New Civil Code, which require a judicial order for consolidation of the title of vendee a retro. Issue: whether or not the execution of the affidavit of consolidation of ownership by Alfonso Flores and its subsequent registration in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Sorsogon made his ownership over the land in question absolute and indefeasible. Held: The Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and declared Alfonso Flores the absolute owner of the subject property. The pacto de retro sale between Gallano and Flores was executed when the Civil Code of Spain was still in effect. It is provided in Article 1509 thereof that if the vendor does not comply with the provisions of Article 1518, (i.e. to return the price, plus expenses) the vendee shall acquire irrevocably the ownership of the thing sold. Consequently, since the pacto de retro sale in question, which was executed in February of 1950, before the effectivity of the New Civil Code in

Upload: anonymous-33liov6l

Post on 14-Dec-2015

218 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Sales # 36 & 39

Flores vs. So

Facts:

On February 27, 1950, Valentin Gallano sold his parcel of coconut and rice land situated in Matnog, Sorsogon to Alfonso Flores with a right of repurchase within four (4) years from the date of the sale, for a price of P2,550.00. Then on February 26, 1958, Gallano sold in an absolute manner the same land to Johnson So for the price of P5,000.00. On March 6, 1958 Alfonso executed affidavit of consolidation of ownership and its subsequent registration in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Sorsogon.

Johnson So filed an action for specific performance before the Court of First Instance against Alfonso Flores to effect the redemption of the land. Johnson So contends that the Pacto de Retro Sale a mere mortgage to secure a loan.

The lower court decided in favor of Johnson So, holding that the contract is indeed a contract of sale of a parcel of land with the reservation in favor of the vendor a retro of the right to repurchase, however the registration of Alfonso did not make his ownership over the land in question absolute and indefeasible because of non-compliance with Articles 1606 and 1607 of the New Civil Code, which require a judicial order for consolidation of the title of vendee a retro.

Issue:

whether or not the execution of the affidavit of consolidation of ownership by Alfonso Flores and its subsequent registration in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Sorsogon made his ownership over the land in question absolute and indefeasible.

Held:

The Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and declared Alfonso Flores the absolute owner of the subject property. The pacto de retro sale between Gallano and Flores was executed when the Civil Code of Spain was still in effect. It is provided in Article 1509 thereof that if the vendor does not comply with the provisions of Article 1518, (i.e. to return the price, plus expenses) the vendee shall acquire irrevocably the ownership of the thing sold. Consequently, since the pacto de retro sale in question, which was executed in February of 1950, before the effectivity of the New Civil Code in August of 1950, was a contract with a resolutory condition, and the condition was still pending at the time the new law went into effect, the provisions of the old Civil Code would still apply. The right of ownership was already vested in Alfonso Flores way back in 1954 when Gallano's failed to redeem within the stipulated period.

Pertinent articles:

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.

Page 2: Sales # 36 & 39

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. (1508a)

Art. 1607. In case of real property, the consolidation of ownership in the vendee by virtue of the failure of the vendor to comply with the provisions of article 1616 shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property without a judicial order, after the vendor has been duly heard.

"Art. 2252. Changes made and new provisions and rules laid down by this Code which may prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the old legislation shall have no retroactive effect. . ." 

"Art. 2255. The former laws shall regulate acts and contracts with a condition or period which were executed or entered into before the effectivity of this Code, even though the condition or period may still be pending at the time this body of laws goes into effect." 

Etcuban vs. CA

Facts:

Dominico Etcuban together with his 11 co-heirs inherited a land from their deceased father. Thereafter the 11 co-heirs executed in favor of the Songalias 11 deeds of sale of their respective shares in the co-ownership for the total sum of P26,340.00.

Dominico Etcuban alleged that his co-owners sold their respective shares without giving due notice to him as a co-owner notwithstanding his intimations to buy all their respective shares.

On the other hand, Songalia, denying Dominico’s allegation, argued that Dominico came to know of the sale of the land in August, 1968. Acting on this knowledge, Dominico wrote to Songalia on August 15, 1968 about the matter; and thereafter Jesus Songalia personally went to the office of the counsel of Dominico to inform him of the sale of the disputed land to them. Another demand letter was received on May 30, 1969 by Songalia from the lawyers of Dominico Etcuban but on both occasions, no action was taken by Dominico despite the information he received from Songalia thru his counsel and that consequently Dominico lost his right to redeem under Art. 1623 of the new Civil Code because the right of redemption may be exercised only within 30 days from notice of sale and plaintiff was definitely notified of the sale years ago as shown by the records. 

Etcuban contends that vendors (his co-heirs) should be the ones to give him written notice and not the vendees (Songalias).

The trial court allowed plaintiff to exercise his right of redemption while the Court of Appeals reserved the decision ruling that that petitioner is barred from redeeming the subject property for his failure to make a valid tender of the sale price of the land paid by the defendants within the period fixed by Art. 1623 of the Civil Code.

Issue:

Whether or not Dominico Etcuban has a right of redemption over the property

Held:

Page 3: Sales # 36 & 39

The court held that the notice required in Article 1623 does not prescribe any particular form of notice, nor any distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner. So long therefore, as the latter is informed in writing of the sale and the particulars thereof, the 30 days for redemption start running, and the redemptioner has no real cause to complain.

Written notice was given to plaintiff-appellee in the form of an answer with counterclaim to the complaint in Civil Case No. BN-109 which appears on the records to have been filed on March 18, 1972. This notice is sufficient to inform the plaintiff about the sale and the reckoning date for the 30-day period commenced upon receipt thereof. Since the answer with counterclaim was filed on March 18,1972, the deposit of the redemption price on May 27, 1974 by petitioner was clearly outside the 30-day period of legal redemption.