Facts:

The case of Galo Abrenica vs. Manuel Gonda and Marcelino de Gracia, decided by the Philippine Supreme Court on August 15, 1916, stemmed from a dispute regarding two parcels of land. The plaintiff, Galo Abrenica, filed a complaint to compel the defendants, Manuel Gonda and Marcelino de Gracia, to return the land which Galo alleged he sold to Gonda under a right of repurchase for P75, with a term of seven years. The sale occurred on February 21, 1916, and Galo claimed that when he attempted to redeem the property upon the sale's expiration, Gonda refused to return it despite his tender of payment. Gonda, on the other hand, contended that he had purchased the land outright from Galo and his mother over 19 years ago and attempted to substantiate this claim during the trial by presenting evidence. The case was initially heard by a justice of the peace who found in favor of Galo, asserting that Galo maintained his right to recover the property despite Gonda's subsequent sale o

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The litigation involves Galo Abrenica (plaintiff/appellee) and Manuel Gonda together with Marcelino de Gracia (defendants/appellants).
• The dispute centers on two parcels of land subject to a transaction allegedly executed on February 21, 1906, for the sum of P75 with a right of repurchase for a period of seven years.

The Transaction and Disputed Claims

• The plaintiff claimed he sold the land under a contract (described variably as a sale with right of repurchase, a verbal pledge, or mortgage) to defendant Gonda, which allowed him to redeem the property upon expiration of the seven-year period.
• When the repurchase period expired, the plaintiff attempted to redeem the property by tendering the purchase sum, but the defendant refused to deliver the parcels.
• Defendant Gonda contended that, nearly 19 years prior, he was already the sole possessor and owner of the land, alleging that the land had been sold by the plaintiff and his mother in an absolute sale, not subject to any repurchase right.
• Defendant Marcelino de Gracia was drawn into the controversy as he allegedly purchased the same parcels from Gonda, further complicating the ownership issue.

Proceedings at the Court of First Instance

• The case was initially tried by the justice of the peace of the provincial capital, acting under an assignment by the judge of the Court of First Instance pursuant to Act No. 2041.
• The trial judge heard extensive evidence including the plaintiff’s testimony and the testimonies of his witnesses (Juan Carandang, Domingo Tamayo, and Pedro Mendoza).
• Evidence was presented regarding the details of the alleged oral contract, including the circumstances and the location (in the house of Domingo Tamayo) where the agreement was made and the subsequent tendering of the sum of P75.
• Cross-examination by counsel for the defendants raised questions on the plaintiff’s testimony, particularly as related to the existence of a written instrument; however, objections were not timely made regarding much of the evidence.
• The court also faced a jurisdictional challenge on whether the justice of the peace had authority to try the case under Act No. 2041, which had been previously contested in other cases such as Calampiano vs. Tolentino.

Rulings at the Lower Court

• The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the evidence favoring the existence of a verbal contract of sale with right of repurchase was more credible.
• It was determined that, even if the contract had been improperly characterized as a mortgage or a pledge, the essence of the agreement was that the plaintiff retained a repurchase right for the land.
• The judgment ordered both defendants to return the parcels of land to the plaintiff after the payment of P75 had been deposited with the court clerk.
• The court made no finding regarding the damages claimed by the plaintiff due to a lack of evidence showing that any damage was suffered.
• The defendants moved for a new trial and excepted to various rulings (particularly regarding the admissibility of certain evidence), but these motions were overruled at trial.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

• The defendants, via proper bill of exceptions, appealed the trial court’s judgment to the Supreme Court, raising two main assignments of error:
• The alleged error in the trial judge’s exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to Act No. 2041.
• The error in basing the judgment on evidence that was later argued as inadmissible due to non-compliance with the statute on written contracts for real property.
• The Supreme Court addressed these assignments, affirming the correctness of the trial proceedings and the handling of the evidence.

Issue:

Jurisdictional Validity

• Whether the trial judge, acting under Act No. 2041, had proper jurisdiction to try the case despite allegations that the authorizing act might be unconstitutional.
• Whether the case falling under the precedent cited in Barrameda vs. Moir invalidates the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace.

Existence and Nature of the Contract

• Whether there existed a valid contract between the plaintiff and defendant Gonda for the sale with a right of repurchase (allegedly formed verbally), or whether the transaction was an absolute sale made by the plaintiff’s parents to Gonda.
• Whether the evidence adduced, including testimonies and oral statements about the terms and witnesses of the contract, sufficed to prove the existence of such a contract.

Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence regarding the alleged oral contract despite statutory requirements for a written instrument, under Section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Whether the defendants’ late objections to the admissibility of evidence (and subsequent waiver of these objections) nullify their argument against its consideration in deciding the case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)