Title
Aquino vs. Esguerra
Case
G.R. No. L-2362
Decision Date
Sep 29, 1950
1. **Sale and Sale of Land**: Filomena Manaois sold a parcel of land to Sotero Esguerra with a right of repurchase within five years. She died in 1929, and the land was never repurchased.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2362)

Facts:

  1. Sale and Repurchase Agreement:
    On November 19, 1928, Filomena Manaois sold a parcel of land to Sotero Esguerra with a right of repurchase within five years. Filomena Manaois died in 1929, and the land was never repurchased.

  2. Cadastral Proceeding:
    The land became the subject of a cadastral proceeding as Lot 2758. By a decision of the Court of Appeals on August 5, 1938, only three-fifths of Lot 2758 was adjudicated to the heirs of Filomena Manaois, subject to the sale in favor of Sotero Esguerra. The remaining two-fifths was awarded to Teodora Manaois.

  3. Compensation Agreement:
    On November 12, 1940, Anisia Aquino, Arnulfo Aquino, Romulo Aquino, and Benigno Aquino (children of Filomena Manaois, with the latter two being minors represented by Ambrosio Aquino) executed an agreement. They conveyed to Sotero Esguerra a portion of three-fifths of Lot 2761, which was also adjudicated to Filomena Manaois in the cadastral proceeding. This was to compensate Sotero Esguerra for the loss of two-fifths of Lot 2758.

  4. Failure to Deliver Possession:
    Sotero Esguerra and his wife, Rufina Tandoc, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan against Anisia Aquino, Romulo Aquino, Benigno Aquino, Maria Corona Aquino, and Isabel Aquino (the latter two being the children of Arnulfo Aquino, deceased) to recover the portion conveyed under the agreement and for lost rentals.

  5. Lower Court Decision:
    The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal as to Romulo Aquino and Benigno Aquino but reversed it as to Anisia Aquino, Maria Corona Aquino, and Isabel Aquino. The Court of Appeals declared that the plaintiffs were entitled to an undivided three-tenths portion of Lot 2761 and awarded damages.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Binding Nature of Contracts:
    Contracts voluntarily entered into by competent parties are binding and enforceable, provided they are not contrary to law, public policy, or public morals. The agreement (Exhibit C) was valid and binding on the parties who executed it.

  2. Heirs' Liability for Decedent's Obligations:
    Heirs are not personally liable for the debts of the decedent unless they voluntarily assume such obligations. In this case, the heirs voluntarily entered into the agreement to compensate Sotero Esguerra, making it binding on them.

  3. Interpretation of Contracts:
    Contracts must be interpreted according to their clear terms. The Court of Appeals erred in awarding a larger portion of Lot 2761 than what was stipulated in the agreement. The correct interpretation was that the conveyance was limited to the equivalent of two-fifths of Lot 2758.

  4. Finality of Factual Findings:
    Factual findings of the Court of Appeals, such as the amount of damages and the starting year for payment, are final and cannot be reviewed in an appeal by certiorari unless there is a clear error of law.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.