Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1826)
Facts:
Jose L. Gomez et al. v. Miguela Tabia, G.R. No. L-1826. August 05, 1949, the Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Jose L. Gomez and his wife Sinforasa Azores (plaintiffs below) sued respondent Miguela Tabia in the Court of First Instance of Laguna seeking: (a) a declaration compelling Tabia to disclose the basis of her claim; (b) a declaration that she had no title or interest in the parcel covered by T.T. No. 19817; (c) declaration of the plaintiffs' title as valid against the world; and (d) perpetual injunction against Tabia's claims. The plaintiffs relied on a deed of sale with pacto de retro dated June 24, 1944 (Exhibit A) whereby Tabia sold the parcel for P5,000 in Japanese military notes and reserved a right to redeem within 30 days after the expiration of one year from June 24, 1944, "sa ganito ding halaga" ("at the same price").
The Court of First Instance found that, before the redemption period expired, Tabia tendered P500 (Philippine currency) which the plaintiffs refused; she then deposited P100 with the clerk and attempted to deposit P5,000 in Japanese notes. The trial court interpreted "sa ganito ding halaga" to mean the Philippine-currency equivalent of P5,000 Japanese notes (using an exchange rate of 1:30 at the date of sale, thus P150), and held the tendered sums preserved her right to redeem; it ordered that if Tabia added P50 to the P100 on deposit, plaintiffs must execute reconveyance.
On appeal the Court of Appeals agreed that the P5,000 represented aggregated loans converted into the purchase price and likewise interpreted the redemption clause to require payment of the Philippine-currency equivalent of P5,000 in Japanese notes, but, applying the Ballantine schedule and considering the dates of the various loans, fixed the equivalent at P790.26; it directed reconveyance upon payment and noted the deed was unregistered so the plaintiffs would ultimately have to obtain regular conveyance procedures if Tabia failed to redeem.
Petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court by certiorari. The Court accepted the lower courts' factual findings but disagreed with their contractual interpretation: the Supreme Court held that "sa ganito ding halaga" meant the same nominal amount of P5,000 in the currency prevailing at redemption (i.e., Philippine currency if redemption after liberation), not the wartime-equivalent value as computed under the Ballantine schedule. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- In a pacto de retro executed during the Japanese occupation providing redemption "sa ganito ding halaga" of P5,000 in Japanese military notes, should the redemption price be the Philippine-currency equivalent of those notes computed by the Ballantine schedule, or the same nominal P5,000 in the currency prevailing at the time of redemption?
- Did the defendant's tender and deposit before the expiration of the redemption period preserve her right to redeem, and what must she pay to effect reconveyance?
- Does the failure to register the pacto de retro affect what was conveyed a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)