Title
Quinga vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-14961
Decision Date
Sep 19, 1961
Filomena Salas and Ceferino Datoon's disputed land transaction, initially deemed an absolute sale, was ruled an equitable mortgage by courts due to inadequate price, continued possession, and delayed crop shares, allowing Salas to repurchase.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-14961)

Factual Background

Filomena Salas initiated her claim in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to compel Flora Quinga to reconvey Lot No. 7741. Salas alleged she owed Ceferino Datoon PHP 200.00 prior to September 1934 and attempted to offer this as collateral for a loan through a mortgage or pacto de retro. Instead, Datoon prepared a deed of absolute sale dated September 18, 1934, which Salas signed under the condition that she could remain in possession of the property and eventually repurchase it. Datoon did not honor this arrangement after his death in 1943, leading Salas to deposit PHP 100.00 with the court as part of her repurchase claim.

Subsequent Legal Proceedings

The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Flora Quinga, determining that the transaction was an absolute sale rather than a mortgage and dismissed Salas’ complaint. This ruling included an order for Salas to surrender possession of the property to Quinga along with a stipulated amount for damages. Salas subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court's decision.

Court of Appeals Findings

The Court of Appeals determined that the true nature of the transaction between Salas and Datoon was an equitable mortgage rather than a sale. Three key reasons supported this finding: the inadequate sales price for the property, Salas’ continued possession of the land, and the timing of Datoon’s receipt of crop shares indicating he did not act as an owner until long after the purported sale.

Examination of Evidence

On the matter of the authenticity of Exhibit A, which purportedly allowed Salas to repurchase the property, the Court of Appeals found that there was insufficient evidence to conclusively denote it as a forgery. The court acknowledged that the absence of complete evidence did not negate the original agreement's characterization as a mortgage, further asserting that even if Exhibit A were deemed a forgery, it would not change the nature of the original agreement.

Significance of Transaction Type

In its analysis, the Court affirmed the lower court's conclusion that the purported sale was actually an equitable mortgage, predominantly based on the inadequacy of the price and Salas’ continued possession of the property. These issues suggested the presence of a loan secured by the property, rather than a final sale.

Statute of Limitations

The argument raised by Quinga asserting that Salas’ cause of action had prescribed was also dismissed by the Court. It noted that since the property remained m

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.