Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29442)
Facts:
Fortunato Bollozos, Andrea Bollozos Vda. de Rapanot, Pablo B. Calam, Epifania B. Bevera, Sergio B. Calam, Gualberto B. Calam, Ignacio B. Calam, Jose B. Calam, Jr. and Carolina B. Calam v. Yu Tieng Su (alias Siso Yu), G.R. No. L-29442, November 11, 1987, Supreme Court First Division, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.
The action began with a complaint filed January 20, 1968, by the plaintiffs-appellees seeking recovery of a 1.2-hectare parcel and an accounting from defendant-appellant Yu Tieng Su. The plaintiffs alleged that the land had been delivered to Yu merely for administration to apply its produce to the indebtedness of their predecessor-in-interest, Paulino Bollozos, and that Yu refused to return the land or account for it although the debt was paid. Yu answered, asserting ownership based on two written instruments executed by Paulino: a deed of sale with right of repurchase (pacto de retro) dated September 1, 1934 (Annex A), and a deed of absolute sale dated September 21, 1936 (Annex B); he also pleaded prescription.
Before the trial court the parties stipulated to certain facts, including the identity of the parcel (OCT No. 5033 in Paulino’s name), the familial relationships, and the existence and authenticity of Annexes A and B; they agreed to submit the case for decision on whether the 1934 instrument or the 1936 instrument effected a valid conveyance and whether either was void. Relying on the stipulation and memoranda and without receiving further evidence, the trial court (presided by Judge Bernardo Teves) ruled for the plaintiffs, holding that the 1934 instrument was in reality an equitable mortgage and that the 1936 sale was void ab initio because the Commonwealth Constitution (effective November 15, 1935) already prohibited alien acquisition of agricultural land; Yu was a Chinese national.
After Yu’s death the substituted heirs continued the appeal. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court considered the written instruments (Annexes A and B) and the stipulati...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the September 1, 1934 instrument a valid sale with right of repurchase (pacto de retro) that transferred ownership to Yu, or was it an equitable mortgage?
- Could the September 21, 1936 deed validly convey ownership to Yu despite the 1935 Constitution's prohibition on alien acquisition of agricultural land, and what was its legal effect?
- Does the fact that title and tax declarations remained in Paulino Bollozos’ name (i.e., nonregistration) convert the 1934 sale into an equitable...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)