Title
Teoxon vs. Panis
Case
G.R. No. L-1584
Decision Date
Apr 3, 1948
Salvador Teoxon redeemed land for P463, ceded possession to Trinidad Senar. Emilia Teoxon attempted redemption with Japanese money, promising replacement. Defendants took land in 1947; Supreme Court ruled redemption conditional, upheld Trinidad’s claim.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-1584)

Petitioner and Respondent

The petitioner, Trinidad Senar, contesting the possession of the land, initiated an action for mense detention against the respondents, Salvador Teoxon and Francisco D. Boayes. The respondents claimed the redemption payment had already been made, resulting in the cancellation of the original agreement.

Key Dates and Transactions

  • December 15, 1941: Salvador Teoxon redeemed the land from Trinidad Senar for the amount of P463.
  • February 27, 1942: Teoxon executed a document ceding possession of the land to Trinidad, redeemable at any time for the same amount.
  • June 29, 1943: Emilia Teoxon redeemed the property using Japanese currency amidst the economic turmoil of World War II.
  • November 6, 1945: Francisco D. Boayes confirmed the earlier promise by agreeing to convert the Japanese money to Philippine currency, allowing Trinidad continued possession of the land until such conversion.

Description of Transactions

Emilia Teoxon redeemed the disputed land using Japanese paper currency on June 29, 1943, under the condition that if the currency became valueless, it would be exchanged for legal Philippine tender. Subsequently, on November 6, 1945, Francisco D. Boayes acknowledged this condition and permitted Trinidad Senar to continue using the land until the currency could be exchanged.

Legal Proceedings and Claims

On May 10, 1947, Trinidad Senar filed a case against the respondents for unlawful detention of the property after they continued to occupy it despite demands for its return. The case, categorized as Civil Case No. 13 in the Justice of the Peace Court of Caramoan, was amended on July 7, 1947, to include a petition for restitution of the land unless the respondents paid the stated P463 amount.

Jurisdictional Challenges and Rulings

The respondents raised objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court, arguing that the contested amount and claims did not fall under the court's purview. However, their motions to dismiss were denied, prompting them to seek an original petition for certiorari from the Supreme Court, wherein they requested the court to bar the Justice of the Peace from proceeding with the case.

Examination of Agreement Types

The key legal contention arose from whether the transaction originally executed by Salvador Teoxon was a sale with a pacto de retro or a mortgage. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that it is unnecessary to classify the original transaction definitively. Instead, what is crucial is the parties' intent expressed in their subsequent writings, which clearly indicated that possession of the land was ceded to Trinidad with the provision that the redemption could occur at any time for the amount of P463.

Conditional Redemption Validity

The court determined that the redemption made by Emilia on June 29, 1943, was conditional rather than absolute. The fulfillment of the redemption price in legal tender was a prerequisite for the completion of the transaction. Since Japanese paper currency had become valueless by November 6, 1945, Francisco D. Boayes’ stipulations confirmed Trinidad's right to possess the land until payment was rendered in Philippine currency, indicating that the respondents had not sa

...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.