Title
Philippine Free Press Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 132864
Decision Date
Oct 24, 2005
A Philippine magazine critical of Marcos was forced to sell assets under duress during martial law; courts upheld the sale, citing prescription, lack of vitiated consent, and implied ratification.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 132864)

Facts:

  • Petitioner’s Background and Property
    • Philippine Free Press, Inc. (“Petitioner”) published a widely circulated political magazine.
    • In 1963, Petitioner acquired a 5,000-sqm lot at No. 2249 Pasong Tamo Street, Makati (TCT No. 109767) and erected its main office.
  • Martial Law Intervention
    • Pre-Martial Law, Petitioner criticized President Marcos and predicted dictatorship.
    • On September 20–21, 1972, the military padlocked the Free Press building, arrested Teodoro Locsin, Sr. without charges, and forced him under “city arrest” not to publish or criticize the regime.
    • Publication ceased; financial ruin followed; employees and minority shareholders demanded separation pay and buy-outs.
  • Negotiations and Sale
    • In 1973, emissaries of Marcos (Atty. Baizas, Sec. De Vega, Brig. Gen. Menzi) repeatedly offered to buy Petitioner; Locsin, Sr. refused until negotiating a sale of land, building, machinery—but retaining the “Free Press” name.
    • On August 22, 1973, Menzi paid P1,000,000 downpayment; board approved the sale.
    • On October 23, 1973, two deeds of sale were executed for P5,750,000; proceeds paid employees, bought out minority shares, and settled obligations.
  • Judicial Proceedings
    • On February 26, 1987, Petitioner filed for annulment of the 1973 sales, citing vitiated consent and gross inadequacy of price; PCGG was later dismissed.
    • Trial court (Oct. 31, 1995) dismissed the complaint and awarded attorney’s fees to Liwayway Publishing, Inc.
    • Court of Appeals (Feb. 25, 1998) affirmed with deletion of attorney’s fees award.
    • Petitioner filed Rule 45 petition, challenging prescription, duress, price inadequacy, implied ratification, and exclusion of proffered exhibits.

Issues:

  • Whether Martial Law operated as force majeure to suspend the four-year prescriptive period for annulment under Art. 1391 of the Civil Code.
  • Whether Petitioner’s consent to the 1973 sale was vitiated by duress, intimidation or undue influence by Marcos through Menzi.
  • Whether the purchase price of P5,750,000 was so grossly inadequate as to invalidate the sale.
  • Whether Petitioner’s use of the sale proceeds constituted implied ratification under Art. 1393 of the Civil Code.
  • Whether proffered Exhibits X-6 to X-7 and Y-3 establishing Marcos’s ownership of Liwayway were admissible and relevant.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.