Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1928 > December 1928 Decisions > G.R. No. 27235 December 29, 1928 - PRIMITIVO PAGUIO v. TOMASA MANLAPID

052 Phil 534:



[G.R. No. 27235. December 29, 1928.]

PRIMITIVO PAGUIO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOMASA MANLAPID, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Marcelino Lontok, for Appellants.

Laurel, Alas & De la Rosa, for Appellees.


1. VENDOR AND VENDEE; CONTRACT OF SALE. — The contract entered into by the plaintiffs’ predecessor in interest was a sale. The terms of the instrument are clearly and unequivocally to that effect, and there is nothing in the record to justify our construing that contract as a mere mortgage.



During her lifetime Maria Monzon was the owner of a certain parcel of land with the certificate of title No. 962. On November 23, 1914, she sold it to Felipe Banzon by a private instrument for P2,000, subject to right of repurchase without any definite period, and this instrument she later ratified before a notary on December 29, 1915.

After she died, her children, the present plaintiffs, filed this action praying that deed of sale with right to repurchase be declared a mere mortgage.

Prior to this suit, Tomasa Manlapid and others had instituted an action for unlawful detainer of this land against Eusebio Paguio, the father of the plaintiffs herein; judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant and upon appeal, was affirmed by this court. 1 Plaintiffs herein likewise pray that judgment on possession be set aside because the action was brought in bad faith, and the trial court was without jurisdiction to try it.

The appealed judgment absolved the defendants from the complaint.

The only question for our decision is, to our mind, whether the contract upon this land entered into by and between Maria Monzon and Felipe Banzon, the predecessor in interest of the defendants, was a;sale with a right to repurchase or merely a mortgage. In our opinion it was a sale. The terms of the instrument are clearly and unequivocally to that effect. There is nothing in the record to justify our construing that contract as a mere mortgage in the face of its plain terms. The appellants attempted to present two documents, one signed by Y. M. Valero and the other by Encarnacion Tuason which the court below did not admit, to show that certain amounts were paid as interest on account of that contract. We believe the trial court did right in refusing to admit these documents, for not having been signed by Felipe Banzon or his representative, or by the administratrix of his property after his decease. It must be borne in mind that after the sale of this land Maria Monzon, the vendor, remained in possession as a lessee, and the appellees hold that the amounts she paid were rents and not interest. The fact that these amounts were actually received by Felipe Banzon during his lifetime, and by the administratrix of his estate after his death, does not show that they were received as interest, although the receipts issued so state, since they were not signed either by Felipe Banzon or by the administratrix. While it is true that the plaintiffs have presented evidence to show that the issuance of these receipts was ordered by Felipe Banzon, during his lifetime, and by Tomasa Manlapid, his widow, after his death, yet there is no evidence that they gave directions that receipt be issued expressly acknowledging receipt of said amounts as payment of interest.

The appellants assert that the appellees did not testify, according to their contention, that the sums paid were for rent and not interest. This is correct. But the appellees presented other evidence to this effect, which, although it was presented in the other case for unlawful detainer was, nevertheless, adduced as evidence in the instant case. (Exhibit O.) We may add that the appellant Eusebio Paguio himself, in his testimony in the other case which was also presented as evidence in the present one, while he stated that the amounts paid were interest, yet did not seem to be sure on this point, for in other paragraphs he stated that the contract was a sale, and that the instrument dated November 23, 1914, expressed the real contract.

We do not consider that the attempted compromise made in this case, which has not been carried into effect, supports the plaintiffs’ contention.

The judgment of this court in the case of unlawful detainer of the same land, mentioned at the beginning, held that the instrument of November 23, 1914 really evidenced a sale with the right to repurchase, and not merely a mortgage. With respect to Eusebio Paguio,’ who was a party to that, such ruling is res adjudicata. Although the same cannot be said of the other appellants, who were not parties therein, yet, we cannot but consider that the evidence which justified that ruling, is also evidence in the case before us. But even without taking into account that judgment of the trial court which was affirmed by this court and confining ourselves to the merits of the case at bar, we find that said instrument did in fact evidence a sale and not a mere mortgage. For this reason, there is no need to consider the other questions raised by the appellants with respect to that judgment, which was rendered with jurisdiction and there is no evidence that it was obtained by fraud.

The fact that, after the sale and during the legal period of redemption, that is, on October 2, 1915, during the hearing of the cadastral case in which this land was claimed by Maria Monzon, and that on October 5, 1917, when the proper decree was issued in her favor, Felipe Banzon did not appear to have this sale recorded, affects neither his rights nor those of his heirs. In the case of Cabanos v. Register of Deeds of Laguna and Obinana (40 Phil., 620), which is a similar case, this court

"However, the contract of sale with pacto de retro entered into between the parties still subsists without any alteration, nor has it been rescinded by the certificate of title subsequently obtained by the vendor over the lands sold, inasmuch as the issuance in his favor of said title does not destroy the validity of the executed contract and does not exempt him from the obligation of complying with it in accordance with the provision of articles 1446 et seq. of the Civil Code, for it would then be highly unjust that the defendant, who received the price of the sale of the lands sold, would still remain with said lands thereby enriching himself at the expense and to the great prejudice of the purchaser. The registration of the lands already sold by the vendor cannot serve him as a protecting mantle to cover and shelter his bad faith to the prejudice of the innocent purchaser.

"Said purchaser has no right to institute a real action for the recovery of said lands based upon the consolidation of his ownership thereof due to vendor’s failure to exercise the right of repurchase for the latter subsequently obtained the registration; but the purchaser notwithstanding the title obtained by the vendor, has a right and a corresponding subsisting personal action, also arising out of the same contract of purchase and sale, to ask for its compliance and the delivery of the lands sold, after the execution of a document of the absolute sale thereof, which should be annotated in the certificates of title issued to the vendor, the latter being bound on his part to deliver these certificates to the purchaser who thereby becomes the owner of the lands sold, there being no lawful or just reason authorizing the vendor to retain them in his hands after having received their purchase price from the purchaser who claims them with more than sufficient right."cralaw virtua1aw library

Furthermore, the petition for a new trial on account of the discovery of new evidence must be denied because such evidence is immaterial.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.


1. Manlapid v. Paguio, G.R. No. 23876, promulgated November 7, 1925, not reported.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

December-1928 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 28734 December 4, 1928 - CRESCENCIANO INGSON v. JUAN OLAYBAR

    052 Phil 395

  • December 7, 1928 - IN RE: FELIPE DEL ROSARIO

    052 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. 29530 December 8, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAOTO

    052 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 30263 December 8, 1928 - ROMAN ACERDEN v. ANTIAGO TONOLETE

    052 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 30174 December 10, 1928 - MODESTO YUMUL v. GREGORIO PALMA

    052 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 29506 December 11, 1928 - CONCEPCION PELAEZ v. EULALIA BUTAO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 29040 December 14, 1928 - BONIFACIO JULIAN v. SILVERIO APOSTOL, ET AL.

    052 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 29755 December 14, 1928 - LEYTE ASPHALT & MINERAL OIL CO. v. BLOCK, JOHNSTON & GREENBAUM

    052 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 30173 December 14, 1928 - PEDRO SALDAÑA v. CRISPULO CONSUNJI, ET AL.

    052 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 29298 December 16, 1928 - REYNALDO LABAYEN v. TALISAY SILAY MILLING CO.

    052 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 29367 December 15, 1928 - ROBERTO SOLATORIO v. ARCADIO SOLATORIO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 30314 December 15, 1928 - PABLO C. DE LA ROSA v. HERMOGENES YONSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 29230 December 18, 1928 - MACONDRAY & CO. INC. v. GO BUN PIN

    052 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 28865 December 19, 1928 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. CAYETANO ORLANES

    052 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. 28753 December 20, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO FLORES, ET AL.

    052 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 30510 December 21, 1928 - ABENCIO TORRES v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ

    052 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 29036 December 22, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MANALO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 29345 December 22, 1928 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. B. A. GREEN

    052 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. 29395 December 22, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN SAMBILE, ET AL.

    052 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. 29460 December 22, 1928 - ALEJANDRO M. PANIS v. JACINTO YANGCO

    052 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. 29556 December 22, 1928 - PETRONA GAMBOA, ET AL. v. MODESTA GAMBOA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 29789 December 22, 1928 - FRANCISCO BARRIOS v. EDUARDA ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    052 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 29955 December 22, 1928 - CITY OF MANILA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    052 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 30225 December 22, 1928 - AMOS G. BELLIS v. CARLOS A. IMPERIAL

    052 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 27235 December 29, 1928 - PRIMITIVO PAGUIO v. TOMASA MANLAPID

    052 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 28197 December 29, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN REYES

    052 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 28375 December 29, 1928 - BASILIO SANTOS CO v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    052 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 29158 December 29, 1928 - RAFAEL R. ALUNAN v. ELEUTERIA CH. VELOSO

    052 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 29161 December 29, 1928 - JAMES J. RAFFERTY v. PROVINCE OF CEBU

    052 Phil 548


    052 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 29204 December 29, 1928 - RUFINA ZAPANTA ET AL. v. JUAN POSADAS

    052 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 29217 December 29, 1928 - VALENTINA LANCI v. TEODORO R. YANGCO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 29236 December 29, 1928 - FELIPE ALKUINO LIM PANG v. UY PIAN NG SHUN, ET AL.

    052 Phil 571


    052 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 29356 December 29, 1928 - CITY OF MANILA v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

    052 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 29449 December 29, 1928 - LEODEGARIO AZARRAGA v. MARIA GAY

    052 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 29588 December 29, 1928 - STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK v. CHO SIONG

    052 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 29757 December 29, 1928 - JOSE GEMORA, ET AL. v. F. M.YAP TICO & CO.

    052 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 29917 December 29, 1928 - JOSE M. KATIGBAK v. TAI HING CO.

    052 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 30004 December 29, 1928 - FILOMENA MARTINEZ v. PEDRO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    052 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 30241 December 29, 1928 - GREGORIO NUVAL v. NORBERTO GURAY, ET AL.

    052 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 29640 December 22, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CALABON

    053 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. 28185 December 29, 1928 - NICANOR JACINTO v. BERNARDO & CO. ET AL.

    053 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. 28904 December 29, 1928 - CIPRIANA GARCIA v. ISABELO SANTIAGO

    053 Phil 952

  • G.R. No. 29196 December 29, 1928 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. GABINO BARRETTO P. PO E. JAP ET AL.

    053 Phil 955

  • G.R. No. 29423 December 29, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO GOROSPE

    053 Phil 960

  • G.R. No. 29531 December 29, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO FRANCISCO ET AL.,

    053 Phil 965

  • G.R. No. 29593 December 29, 1928 - PAULINA GARCIA v. ROBERTO SAÑGIL

    053 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. 29605 December 29, 1928 - ANTONIO ESPIRITU v. MANILA ELECTRIC LIGHT CO.

    053 Phil 970

  • G.R. No. 29663 December 29, 1928 - MANUEL ALEJANDRINO v. ERIBERTO REYES

    053 Phil 973