G.R. No. 4277 - Tabigue vs. Green

On February 1, 1906, the plaintiff, Potenciana Tabigue, sold the land in controversy to the defendant, Frank E. Green, by an absolute deed.
Despite the nature of the transfer, the plaintiff retained a right to redeem the property within a certain period, as the deed was made while proceedings for inscription of the land in her name were pending in the Court of Land Registration.

On October 20, 1906, the defendant wrote a letter to witness Zialcita outlining several points:

The pending case in the Land Court had been decided in favor of the plaintiff.
A decree confirming the decision would be sent to the registrar of Leyte for record within a few days, with the inscription and decree rendered in the plaintiff’s name.
The defendant stated that the deed already held by him was insufficient and that the plaintiff must sign another deed after registration had been effected.

A statement indicating that although the redemption period had expired, if the plaintiff redeemed the property within three months from the date of the new document, the defendant would agree to it.
The letter served as evidence of this conditional agreement regarding redemption.

The judgment in the Land Court was entered in favor of the plaintiff.
On December 15, 1906, the land was registered in the appellant's favor at the registrar of titles in Leyte, and a certificate of ownership conforming to the Land Registration Act (No. 496) was delivered to the plaintiff.
On December 16, 1906, following the registration, the plaintiff executed and delivered an absolute deed of the property to the defendant.
On December 19, 1906, a new certificate of ownership was issued in favor of the defendant, certifying him as the sole owner of the property.

Prior to the execution of the December 16 deed, the defendant’s letter of October 20 had been delivered to and retained by the plaintiff.
The disputed event centered on whether, upon executing the December 16 deed, the plaintiff waived her right to redeem:

Defendant’s witnesses testified that the plaintiff waived her right to redeem and indicated that, instead, the defendant should compensate her when selling the land to the military government. The amount to be received was left to Mr. Green’s determination.
The plaintiff and her witness denied having waived her right, asserting instead that she maintained the right to redeem, and she subsequently offered to redeem by paying P1,900 in accordance with her deed.

On December 22, 1906, the plaintiff’s attorney submitted a written offer to redeem; the defendant refused this redemption proposal.
The defendant testified that on December 24 or 25, 1906, he executed a deed conveying the land to the military government with a consideration of P3,000, contingent upon approval by military authorities—a condition for which no evidence of approval or payment was introduced.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that she retained the right to redeem and ordering the defendant to transfer title upon payment of P1,900.
The case was governed by Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act). Notably, Section 50 of Act No. 496 establishes that:

The owner of registered land may deal with it as if unregistered.
However, any deed, mortgage, lease, or similar instrument affecting registered land takes effect as a contract between parties and as evidence of authority to effect registration; the actual registration operation is what legally binds the conveyance of the land.

The deed from the defendant to the military government was characterized as only constituting a contract to convey, pending registration, and did not override the prior contractual right of the plaintiff to redeem.

Whether the execution of the December 16, 1906 deed by the plaintiff implied a waiver of her right to redeem as established in the defendant’s letter of October 20, 1906.

Examination of conflicting testimonies regarding whether the plaintiff abandoned her redemption right in exchange for a provision related to the sale to the military government.
Consideration of the plaintiff’s subsequent offer to redeem by paying the agreed redemption price of P1,900.

Whether the deed executed by the defendant to the military government, which was later purportedly intended to effectuate a transfer of title under the registration system, could extinguish or impair the plaintiff’s earlier right to redeem.

Analysis of the operative effect of deeds concerning registered land under Act No. 496 and the role of registration as the conclusive act in the transfer of title.