Facts:

Asuncion Albert y Mayoralgo and Pukifioacion Albert y Aiayokalgo (collectively the "petitioners") sought to register a parcel of land situated in Calle Barredo, Malate, Manila, along with the house built on it. This application was filed with the Court of Land Registration on November 10, 1904, claiming ownership through a purchase made from several individuals, including Narciso Mayuga y Bautista and Felix Bautista y Ongjungco, although the related documentation was never registered. The respondents in this case – Martiniano Punsalan, Saturnina Punsalan, and Catalina Sy-Trapco – contested the petition, asserting that the land originally belonged to Julian Punsalan, their father, who had mortgaged it to Teodorico Bautista with an implicit agreement for redemption after his death. The respondents argued that they had consistently attempted to redeem the property. The lower court examined the evidence and ultimately ruled in favor of

...

Facts:

Filing of the Petition and Land Description

• On November 10, 1904, the petitioners filed a petition before the Court of Land Registration.
• The petition sought the registration of a parcel of land located in Calle Barredo, district of Malate, Manila, including the house erected on the property (Government police number 20).
• The petitioners claimed acquisition of the property through a purchase from several individuals, namely Narciso Mayuga y Bautista, Felix Bautista y Ongjungco, Teodorico Bautista y Ongjungco, Sebastian Santos y Rodriguez, and Vicente Albert y Mayoralgo, as evidenced by an attached document (which was not registered).

Respondents’ Opposition and Claim of Prior Interest

• Respondents opposed the registration, asserting that the property originally belonged to Julian Punsalan.
• It was argued that Julian Punsalan had delivered the property in guaranty (a pacto de retro) to Father Teodorico Bautista upon receiving consideration (130 pesos) with the condition that the property should be redeemed after his death.
• The respondents further contended that Julian Punsalan, the father of the present respondents, died on December 15, 1890, and his wife, Eufemia Concepcion, died on February 27, 1881; and that despite several attempts in the years 1893-1895 and later in 1901 and 1904 to redeem the land, no repurchase had been effectuated.

Proceedings in the Lower Court

• On January 3, 1906, after hearing the evidence from both parties, the judge of the Court of Land Registration rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners.
• The decision was based on multiple findings, including:
• The petitioners, together with their brother Vicente Albert y Mayoralgo, had purchased the land from the listed sellers who were heirs of the late Teodorico Bautista.
• Evidence showed that Vicente Albert y Mayoralgo had transferred his interest in the land to his two sisters through a written document attached to the record.
• Historical records indicated that in 1879, Julian Punsalan had delivered the land to Father Teodorico Bautista in exchange for a sum of 130 pesos.

Details and Nature of the Contract

• The contract under scrutiny was executed on October 18, 1879, as evidenced by a certificate issued by Don Gavino Visco, then gobernadorcillo of Malate.
• The document contained a specific clause stating that the transaction was “upon condition that the same shall be redeemed after the death of the respondent,” thereby designating it as a pacto de retro.
• Testimonies and signatures (including that of an illiterate Julian Punsalan signed by Don Cirilo Unalubia) substantiated the contract’s execution.

Application of the Civil Code Provisions

• After the Civil Code became operative in the Philippines in 1889, its provisions governing land sales and the right of redemption came into effect.
• Articles 1508, 1500, and 1518 of the Civil Code were relevant:
• Article 1508 regulates the duration of the right to repurchase—four years in the absence of an express agreement, extendable up to ten years if agreed.
• Article 1500 and Article 1518 set conditions for the exercise of the vendor’s right of redemption.
• It was determined that neither Julian Punsalan nor his heirs repurchased the land within the statutory period as provided by the transitory provisions (specifically paragraph 4) of the Civil Code.

Consolidated Findings by the Lower Court

• The lower court found that the contract between Julian Punsalan and Father Teodorico Bautista was, indeed, a pacto de retro.
• It further held that the vendor or his heirs failed to redeem the property within the period prescribed by law.
• Consequently, the title to the land passed absolutely to Father Teodorico Bautista and his successors, as supported by precedents such as Espafia vs. Lucido and Garcia vs. Dianiflon.

Issue:

Determination of the Nature of the Contract

• Is the contract between Julian Punsalan and Father Teodorico Bautista a pacto de retro?
• Does the language of the contract, which explicitly states that the property “shall be redeemed after the death” of the respondent, suffice to qualify it as such?

Compliance with the Redemption Period

• If the contract is deemed a pacto de retro, did Julian Punsalan or his heirs repurchase or attempt to repurchase the property within the legally prescribed period (four years, or up to ten years if agreed)?
• What is the legal effect when the vendor fails to exercise the right of redemption within the set period under the Civil Code?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)