Facts:

The case revolves around the ownership and possession of a specific parcel of land located in San Jacinto, Pangasinan, which is detailed in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3429. The land includes improvements such as a house and a camarin. The plaintiff, Cosme Biagtan, originally acquired the property from the Philippine National Bank after it had been foreclosed from Rafael Oller due to non-payment of a mortgage dated November 29, 1919. In a civil case, the bank foreclosed on the mortgage, and the property was sold at public auction on July 28, 1924, to the bank. Although the sale was not confirmed until April 13, 1926, it was effective retroactively to the date of the auction.

Biagtan purchased the property from the bank on June 1, 1927, for P12,000, and received a new title (No. 3429) on June 28, 1927. The defendants, which include Oller's heirs, argued that while Oller's right to repurchase was still valid, he had allowed Biagtan to buy the land under an agreement

...

Facts:

Description of the Subject Matter and Transactions

• The dispute involves the ownership and possession of a parcel of land described in paragraph II of the amended complaint, specifically detailed in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3429.
• The property includes not only the lot but also improvements thereon—a house and a camarin constructed of strong materials—situated in the center of the town in the municipality of San Jacinto, Pangasinan.
• The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Cosme Biagtan, declaring the property his while ordering the defendants to surrender possession; concurrently, Biagtan was mandated to turn over to the defendants two parcels of land acquired from Rafael Oller through a contract of barter that had been declared null and void.

Background of the Parties and Property History

• Rafael Oller, originally the owner of the two parcels described in TCT No. 3429, was a key figure in the ensuing controversy.
• He is identified as the father of defendant Carmen Oller (spouse of Telesforo Sipin) and husband (in life) of Concepcion or Consuelo Pasana Viuda de Oller.
• His progeny and kin—Rafael, Jr., Juanita, Zuraida, Emiliano, and Miguel Oller—figure as part of the defendant group.
• The land in question was first mortgaged by Rafael Oller to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) for P10,000 on November 29, 1919.
• Due to default on the mortgage obligation, the PNB initiated foreclosure proceedings (civil case No. 3942) and subsequently sold the property at a public auction on July 28, 1924, for W,210.
• Although the sale was formally confirmed by the court on April 13, 1926, it was stipulated to be effective as of the auction date (July 28, 1924).
• Further to the sale, the PNB obtained a new title on January 8, 1927 (Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3166) and sold the property to Cosme Biagtan on June 1, 1927, for P12,000, with TCT No. 3429 subsequently issued on June 28, 1927.

The Barter Agreement and Subsequent Controversy

• A contract of barter existed between Cosme Biagtan and Rafael Oller wherein:
• Biagtan undertook to convey parcel No. 2, as indicated in TCT No. 3429, to Rafael Oller.
• In exchange, Rafael Oller (or his representatives) was to deliver five parcels of land situated in the barrio of San Jose, Pangasinan.
• While Biagtan fulfilled his obligation by transferring parcel No. 2, Rafael Oller delivered only two of the five promised parcels (specifically those described in Exhibits 9 and 10).
• The remaining three parcels (as described in Exhibits 8, 11, and 12) were not delivered; one of these later ended up in the possession of Miguel Oller under TCT No. 5860 issued on November 26, 1930.
• The existence of the barter contract is evident from the documentary evidence, including letters written by Biagtan to Rafael Oller from May 7 to August 12, 1929, and is admitted implicitly by the parties.
• A verbal understanding and additional stipulations later modified or novated the original contract, particularly regarding the exchange of the property, creating further complexities in the legal obligations of the parties.

Issue:

Computation and Effect of the Repurchase Period

• Whether the trial court erred in computing Rafael Oller’s one-year period for repurchase from the public auction sale—the timing being calculated from various potential dates (the auction sale, the final confirmation order, or its notation).
• Whether the failure to consider the repurchase period impacted the rights of the parties in the subsequent sale by the Philippine National Bank and the transfer to Biagtan.

Validity and Effect of the Barter Agreement

• Whether the lower court erred in not holding that the negotiations and sale to Biagtan occurred while Oller’s repurchase right was still subsisting.
• Whether the condition—whereby Biagtan was to transfer parcel No. 2 in exchange for five parcels of land—constituted a binding obligation, especially given the subsequent partial fulfillment and novation of the agreement.

Possession and Delivery of the Properties

• Whether the court erred in not declaring Biagtan’s possession of additional land parcels described in certain tax declarations (Exhibits 11 and 12 along with those in tax numbers 10911, 10913, and 10914).
• Whether the physical delivery and actual possession of these parcels should have led to a different legal remedy.

Adequacy of Consideration and Agency

• Whether the lower court erred in not recognizing Oller as an agent or broker in the context of Biagtan’s advantageous background purchase of the 45-hectare parcel from the bank.
• Whether the additional properties (or their negotiation) provided sufficient consideration for the transfer in the barter transaction.

Relief and Cross-complaint Considerations

• Whether the trial court erred in not absolving the defendants from the complaint and in not entering judgment against the plaintiff-cross-defendant in conformity with the prayer of the cross-complaint.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)