Title
Torres vs. Ventura
Case
G.R. No. 86044
Decision Date
Jul 2, 1990
A farmer-beneficiary seeks to redeem his land after transferring possession to a respondent in exchange for a loan, leading to a legal battle that highlights the importance of agrarian reform laws and the protection of farmer-beneficiaries' rights.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 86044)

Facts:

  • Victorino Torres, a farmer-beneficiary, was the leasehold tenant of a 4,000 square-meter parcel of land in Caloocan, Cabatuan, Isabela.
  • The land was part of the Florencio Firme Estate.
  • In 1978, Torres entered into a "selda" agreement with Leon Ventura due to urgent financial needs, transferring his rights over the land in exchange for a P5,000.00 loan.
  • Torres signed an "Affidavit of Waiver" as part of the agreement, relinquishing his rights over the property to Ventura.
  • Torres claimed there was an understanding that the land would be returned upon repayment of the loan.
  • In 1980, Torres offered to repay the loan, but Ventura requested an extension of one more year.
  • By 1981, Torres was unable to repay the loan due to financial constraints.
  • In 1985, Torres saved enough money to repay the loan, but Ventura refused to vacate the land.
  • Torres filed a complaint with the barangay captain and later with the RTC of Cauayan, Isabela, seeking recovery of possession.
  • The RTC ruled in favor of Torres, declaring the affidavit of waiver null and void and ordering Ventura to return the land and pay damages.
  • Ventura appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC's decision.
  • Torres then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that the agreement between Torres and Ventura was a mortgage.
  2. The affidavit of waiver executed by Torres was declared null and void.
  3. The rights and interes...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's decision, emphasizing the liberal construction of agrarian laws in favor of the farmer-beneficiary.
  • The Court found Torres' account more credible, noting it was improbable for him to relinquish land rights he had been cultivating for a long time.
  • Repeated offers by Torres to repay the loan indicated his intent to retain ownership.
  • The transfer of land rights violated agrarian reform laws, which prohibit the transfer o...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.