Title
Sevilla vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-22012
Decision Date
Apr 28, 1969
Petitioners failed to repurchase land within 8 months but deposited payment 2 days late. SC ruled in their favor, citing good faith and substantial performance under Art. 1234, reversing CA's decision.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-22012)

Factual Background

The respondents initiated Civil Case No. 3066 in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros against the petitioners, asserting that the Quijanos (vendors a retro) had failed to exercise their right to repurchase the two parcels of land within the agreed period. The petitioners countered by characterizing the transaction as a disguised equitable mortgage, alleging that the deed was merely a cover for a usurious loan.

Compromise Agreement

Before the trial commenced, the parties reached a Compromise Agreement dated February 7, 1956, which was submitted to the court for approval on February 9, 1956. The agreement stipulated a timeline for the repurchase, granting the defendants eight months to repurchase the two parcels of land for PHP 8,527.00, with all related expenses to be borne by the defendants. The parties confirmed the properties as belonging to Otilla Sevilla, recorded in a deed of sale with a right of repurchase.

Tender of Payment and Court Orders

On October 9, 1956, the defendants deposited PHP 7,670.00 and later delivered the remaining amount required to complete the repurchase price. However, the plaintiffs refused to accept the payment, asserting that the repurchase period had lapsed. Subsequently, the defendants filed for a motion to confirm the repurchase, which was granted by the lower court on February 27, 1957, ordering the plaintiffs to reconvey the property to the defendants.

Appeal and Court of Appeals Decision

The plaintiffs appealed the order to the Court of Appeals, which ruled on August 28, 1963, to set aside the lower court's order. The appellate court concluded that the defendants had failed to repurchase the property within the stipulated time frame and affirmed the plaintiffs as the absolute owners of the parcels of land.

Legal Issues

The core issue was whether the defendants made the repurchase within the stipulated eight-month period. The compromise agreement itself stated that this period began with the execution date of the agreement and not the judgment.

Supreme Court Findings

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the date for the commencement of the eight-month period was indeed February 7, 1956, while the payment was made on October 9, 1956, leading to a technical expiration of the period. Nonetheless, the Court found that the petitioners acted in good faith, genuinely believing that the timeline was tie

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.