Case Digest (G.R. No. 73077)
Facts:
Escolastica Montesclaros Son, and Heirs of Anastacio Son v. Carmelino Son, Teofista Son, Primitivo Son, Cipriana Son, Anatalia Son, Lareano Son, Gerarda Son and the Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73077, December 29, 1995, Supreme Court First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court (Padilla, Chairman; Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concurring).Petitioners are the heirs of Anastacio Son; private respondents are the children and heirs of the late Pedro Son (and Marcelina Tudtud). Pedro inherited a parcel in Caputatan Norte, Medellin, Cebu (about 2 hectares 7 centares). Petitioners occupied a portion of that land (6,324 sq. m.) and in 1972 respondents demanded its return; petitioners asserted ownership based on a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 5, 1957 (Exhs. A and 9).
On September 2, 1976 respondents filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu for annulment of the 1957 Deed as forged and for recovery of the property. At the pre-trial on December 7, 1976 the parties agreed to limit the controversy to the validity of the November 5, 1957 Deed of Absolute Sale. Trial followed.
The CFI on September 10, 1979 rendered judgment declaring the 1957 Deed null and void, awarding possession to respondents and ordering P1,500 annually from 1972 as share in produce plus attorney’s fees. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, presenting an asserted earlier instrument — a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase dated December 17, 1951 (Exh. 1) — and contending that by failure to repurchase Pedro lost the right and petitioners owned the lot.
On December 27, 1979 the CFI set aside its September 10 judgment, dismissed the complaint and awarded attorney’s fees to defendants. After denial of motion for reconsideration (order of March 5, 1980), respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, in AC-G.R. CV No. 67364, reversed the CFI’s December 27, 1979 order and rendered judgment (October 3, 1985) declaring the November 5, 1957 Deed of Absolute Sale null and void, ordering possession of the 6,324 sq. m. to respondents and awarding P1,500 annually from 1972, rea...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the 1951 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase, though not included in the pre-trial order, may be admitted in evidence because it was properly pleaded and the adverse party failed to object and even cross‑examined on it.
- Whether the Court of Appeals gravely misapprehended the facts or engaged in conjecture when it found that the land described in the 1957 Deed of Absolute Sale is the same property covered by the 1951 Deed with Right to Repurchase.
- Whether the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the 1957 Deed is null and void rested on pure speculation and an impermissible reliance on weaknesses...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)