Case Digest (G.R. No. L-45911)
Facts:
Conchita Nool and Gaudencio Almojera, G.R. No. 116635, July 24, 1997, the Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Conchita Nool and Gaudencio Almojera filed suit to recover two parcels of land (one hectare and about 3.0880 hectares) in San Manuel, Isabela, which they alleged they had bought earlier from their brothers Victorino and Francisco Nool but which had been foreclosed by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) for nonpayment of a loan. DBP became absolute owner after the one‑year redemption period lapsed; it later entered into a conditional sale with respondent Anacleto Nool on April 1, 1985, and new transfer certificates of title were issued to Anacleto on February 8, 1988.Petitioners relied on two private handwritten instruments executed November 30, 1984: Exhibit C (a document entitled Resibo ti Katulagan or receipt of agreement, reflecting an alleged sale for P100,000 with P30,000 paid and P14,000 balance) and Exhibit D (a Kasuratan in which Anacleto purportedly agreed that Conchita could “acquire back or repurchase” the land when she had the money). After DBP sold the properties to Anacleto, petitioners sought judicial relief claiming their right to repurchase under those instruments and under Sec. 119 of the Public Land Act and asserting an implied trust.
At the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Roxas, Isabela (presided by Judge Teodulo E. Mirasol), the trial court dismissed the complaint for no cause of action and ordered, among other things, that the P30,000 be returned with legal interest, that petitioners deliver peaceful possession of two hectares, and that petitioners pay reasonable rents pending delivery. The Court of Appeals, Second Division (Purisima, ponente; Isānani and Somera, JJ., concurri...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are Exhibits C and D valid and enforceable contracts (i.e., was there a valid sale and a valid right of repurchase)?
- Can respondents be estopped from denying the validity of the purported sale and repurchase instruments?
- Should petitioners be ordered to return P30,000 with interest and to pay rent f...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)