Case Digest (G.R. No. 152695)
Facts:
Victoria Claravall, assisted by her husband Loreto Claravall, petitioner, v. Ricardo Lim, Roberto Lim, and Rogelio Lim, respondents, G.R. No. 152695, July 25, 2011, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.This case arose from a Complaint for Consolidation of Ownership filed by respondents against petitioner. Respondents alleged that on December 3, 1976 petitioner executed a Deed of Sale with Right of Repurchase conveying a commercial lot in Ilagan, Isabela and a dwelling house thereon for P250,000, with petitioner reserving the right to repurchase within two years (and an obligation to give written notice six months before expiration). Respondents alleged petitioner did not give the required notice or repurchase within the stipulated period and therefore respondents, as vendees-a-retro, became absolute owners.
In her Answer with Counterclaim petitioner denied material allegations and asserted special defenses: that only P150,000 had been paid, that respondents conditioned additional obligations (including requiring a deed from a third person), that she retained possession or that her brother-in-law Enrique Claravall was in possession as lessee, that she executed a cautionary notice on December 1, 1978, and that the transaction was in substance an equitable mortgage (invoking Article 1602 of the Civil Code). Trial on the merits followed.
On August 5, 1991 the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Isabela, rendered judgment in favor of respondents: declaring respondents absolute owners, ruling petitioner had waived her right to repurchase, and awarding attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On March 18, 2002 the CA affirmed the RTC decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 38859. Petitioner then filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assigning errors that attacked factual findings (posses...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- In a Rule 45 petition, may the Supreme Court re-examine and reverse the Court of Appeals’ findings of fact?
- Was the December 3, 1976 deed an equitable mortgage rather than a deed of sale with right of repurchase?
- Did petitioner (or her proxy) remain in actual possession of the property at the time of the deed’s execution?
- Did respondents pay only P150,000 and withhold the P100,000 balance of the agreed purchase price?
- Did respondents, by their acts or omissions, extend the period for petitioner to exercise the right of repurchase?
- If the contract were a true sale with right of repurchase, is petitioner entitled to repur...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)