Title
Vazquez vs. Villadelgado
Case
G.R. No. 6085
Decision Date
Sep 1, 1911
The court awarded title and possession of a house in Hinigaran, Occidental Negros, to Pedro Vazquez due to compelling evidence and the inconsistent conduct of the parties.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 6085)

Facts:

  • The case involves Pedro Vazquez (plaintiff and appellant) against Joaquin Villadelgado and others (defendants and appellees).
  • On August 16, 1904, Esteban Vazquez y Decena, a farmer in Hinigaran, sold a house to Pedro Yulo for P250, with a right of redemption for six months.
  • Esteban was to lease the house for P30 during the redemption period, responsible for taxes and repairs.
  • On February 12, 1906, Yulo claimed Esteban failed to redeem the property and sold it to Villadelgado.
  • Esteban continued to occupy the house until April 24, 1907, when Villadelgado filed an action to recover possession, winning the case.
  • On January 5, 1907, Esteban sold the same house to Pedro Vazquez for P4,300, with Pedro taking possession while Esteban remained as a tenant.
  • Pedro filed an action on April 30, 1908, to determine title and secure possession, arguing the original sale to Yulo was invalid and that Esteban had paid off the obligation before the redemption period ended.
  • The trial court dismissed Pedro's complaint, prompting this appeal.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling in favor of Pedro Vazquez.
  • The Court determined that the instrument was not a valid pacto de retro and that Esteban had paid the obligation,...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court found that the transaction between Esteban and Yulo did not constitute a valid pacto de retro, as Esteban believed he had redeemed the property before the redemption period expired.
  • Testimonies from Esteban and his son, supported by corroborating witnesses, indicated a payment of P370 was made to Yulo to settle the obligation.
  • The actions of Esteban and Yulo after the supposed expiration of the redemption period were inconsistent with Yulo's claim of ownership; Esteban occupied the house without paying rent, and Yulo did not demand rent or assert ownership for over a year.
  • The Court concluded that the conduct of t...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.