Title
Ong Chua vs. Carr
Case
G.R. No. 29512
Decision Date
Jan 17, 1929
Ong Chua sold properties to Carr, retaining repurchase rights for Teck and Lim. Carr fraudulently registered the deed, omitting repurchase terms. Court ordered reformation, upholding repurchase rights.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 29512)

Factual Background

Ong Chua executed a deed of sale for certain properties, specifically lots Nos. 135, 136, and 137, and a house on lot No. 132. These properties originally belonged to Henry E. Teck and his wife, Magdalena Lim. A right of repurchase was granted to Lim for lot No. 135, allowing her to repurchase it for P6,500 within four years. Additionally, Ong Chua agreed to sell lots Nos. 136 and 137, along with the house on lot No. 132, back to Teck for P13,500. Notably, these agreements were not recorded with the register of deeds.

Legal Proceedings

In July 1925, Edward Carr sought to purchase these properties. After discussions with attorney P. J. Moore, who informed Carr of the existing rights of repurchase held by Teck and Lim, a sale agreement was drafted. However, the final executed deed of sale did not reflect the rights of repurchase due to Moore's omission during the drafting process. Instead, the deed presented an absolute conveyance of the properties to Carr. After signing, Ong Chua was misled about the contents of the deed as he did not understand English.

Issues on Appeal

After Carr registered the deed without Ong Chua's knowledge of the omitted provisions, Ong Chua sought the reformation of the deed in court. The respondents argued that no stipulation regarding the rights of repurchase was recorded and that the agreement was valid as signed. The appeal raised two principal issues: (1) whether the court erred in permitting Ong Chua to testify about events occurring before Carr’s death, and (2) whether the facts warranted the reformation of the deed.

Analysis of Testimony and Evidence

The court evaluated the admissibility of Ong Chua's testimony against the backdrop of Section 383 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which restricts parties from testifying on facts occurring before the death of a deceased party. However, the court acknowledged exceptions where fraud is involved. Credible witnesses had already established fraudulent dealings by Carr, making the exclusion of Ong Chua's testimony unjustifiable. His testimony only occurred after the presentation of substantial evidence demonstrating Carr’s fraudulent conduct.

Deed of Sale and Its Execution

Counsel for Carr contended that the deed executed was an absolute conveyance and that no mistake occurred during its signing. Yet, the court reiterated the role of parol evidence in clarifying the nature of an escrow agreement and noted that the preliminary condition, which stipulated that the deed was to be held in escrow until the rights of repurchase lapsed, had been contravened by Carr’s actions. The

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.