Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36902)
Facts:
Luis Pichel v. Prudencio Alonzo, G.R. No. L-36902, January 30, 1982, the Supreme Court First Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Luis Pichel (vendee) sought review of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Basilan City (Civil Case No. 820, decision dated January 5, 1973) which had annulled a deed between him and respondent Prudencio Alonzo (vendor). The deed dated August 14, 1968 purported to be an “absolute sale” of all coconut fruits on Lot No. 21 (Subdivision Plan Psd-32465, Balactasan Plantation, Lamitan, Basilan City) from September 15, 1968 to January 1, 1976, for P4,200.00; the deed provided that delivery would be effected by the vendee at his expense and contained a warranty of title.
The parcel had been originally awarded to Alonzo under Republic Act No. 477. The Board of Liquidators had canceled that award on January 27, 1965 on grounds of prior alienation, but the record shows no State reversion proceedings were instituted and the award was reinstated in 1972. At the pre‑trial the trial court (Court of First Instance) made several admissions: the land had been awarded under RA 477, the award had been cancelled in 1965 and reinstated in 1972; at the time of the 1968 deed the land was under lease to one Ramon Sua, and part of the consideration (P3,650.00) was to be paid to Sua to release the lease; and defendant Pichel first harvested the coconuts in July 1972. The court framed two issues: (1) whether Pichel actually paid the full P4,200; and (2) whether the deed constituted a prohibited encumbrance under Section 8 of RA 477. Plaintiff (Alonzo) later stipulated that full payment had been made, leaving the second issue as one of law, and the case was submitted for summary judgment.
The Court of First Instance concluded the instrument was not a sale of fruits but in effect a lease of the land (characterized by exclusive possession and enjoyment for a definite term) and thus an encumbrance prohibited by Sec. 8, R.A. No. 477; it declared the deed null and void, ordered Alonzo to repay Pichel P4,200 with interest, awarded Pichel P500 attorney’s fees, and taxed costs against the def...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err in construing and interpreting the deed when its terms are clear and unambiguous?
- Was the instrument a contract of lease of the land (as found by the trial court) or a valid contract of sale of the coconut fruits?
- If the instrument is a sale of fruits, does such sale constitute an encumbrance or alienation of the land or permanent improvements prohibited by Section 8 of R.A. No. 477?
- Was the lower court’s award of attorney’s fees...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)