User:LPULAWMAKATIlegalresearch/sandbox

OLEA V. CA, ELENA VDA. DE PACARDO, JESUS PALENCIA, ELIZABETH PALENCIA AND MONSERRAT PACIENTE, respondents. FACTS: On 27 January 1947 spouses Filoteo Pacardo and Severa de Pacardo executed a deed of Sale Con Pacto de Retro over Lot No. 767 of the Passi Cadastre covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 26424 in their name for a consideration of P950.00 in favor of Maura Palabrica, predecessor in interest of petitioner, subject to the condition that — . . . if we, the said spouses, Filoteo Pacardo and Severa de Pacardo, our heirs, assigns, successors-in-interest, executors and administrators shall and will truly repurchase the above-described parcel of land from the said Maura Palabrica, her heirs, assigns, successors-in-interest after THREE YEARS counting from the date of the execution of this instrument, to wit, on January 27, 1950 in cash payment in the sum of Five Hundred Pesos, Philippine currency, plus Four Hundred and Fifty Pesos (P450), also lawful currency, in cash or eighteen (18) cavans of palay (Provincial Measurement) at our option, then this sale shall become null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever. On the contrary, the same will become irrevocable, definite and final and will vest complete and absolute title on the vendee upon the premises. 1 The contract of sale with right to repurchase was acknowledged by the vendors before Notary Public Victorio Tagamolila on the same day the contract was executed in the Municipality of Passi, Province of Iloilo. The vendors also delivered to the vendee their owner's copy of the title. After the execution of the sale, the Pacardo spouses as vendors remained in possession of the land and continued the cultivation thereof. Since the sale on 27 January 1947 up to August 1987, or for a period of about 40 years, the spouses delivered annually one-third (1/3) of the produce of the land to Maura Palabrica and kept for themselves the remaining two-thirds (2/3). On 27 January 1950, despite the lapse of three (3) years, the Pacardo spouses did not repurchase the land but faithfully continued to give 1/3 of the produce to Maura Palabrica. When the spouses died, their son Filoteo Jr., took over the possession and assumed the cultivation of the land and, like his parents, gave 1/3 of the produce to Maura Palabrica and later to her daughter, petitioner herein, who would eventually buy from her the lot subject of the litigation. On 22 September 1966 Maura Palabrica caused the registration of the Sale Con Pacto de Retro with the Register of Deeds of Iloilo and its annotation on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 26424 covering the subject lot. ISSUE: WON the stipulation in the contract providing that complete and absolute title shall be vested on the vendee should the vendors fail to redeem the property on the specified date is pactum commisorium. HELD: The rule is settled that where in a contract of sale with pacto de retro the vendor remains in physical possession of the land sold as lessee or otherwise, the contract should be considered an equitable mortgage. 9 The same presumption applies when the vendee was given the right to appropriate the fruits thereof in lieu of receiving interest on the loan. 10 Moreover, the terms of the document itself can aid in arriving at the true nature of the transaction. Where the contract contains a stipulation, as in this case, that upon payment by the vendor of the purchase price within a certain period the document shall become null and void and have no legal force or effect, the purported sale should be considered a mortgage contract. In pacto de retro sale the payment of the repurchase price does not merely render the document null and void but there is the obligation on the part of the vendee to sell back the property. 11 It has been consistently held that the presence of even one of the circumstances enumerated in Art. 1602 of the New Civil Code is sufficient to declare a contract of sale with right to repurchase an equitable mortgage. 12 This is so because pacto de retro sales with the stringent and onerous effects that accompany them are not favored. In case of doubt, a contract purporting to be a sale with right to repurchase shall be construed as an equitable mortgage. 13 Such stipulation that the ownership of the property would automatically pass to the vendee in case no redemption was effected within the stipulated period is void for being a pactum commissorium which enables the mortgagee to acquire ownership of the mortgaged property without need of foreclosure. Its insertion in the contract is an avowal of the intention to mortgage rather than to sell the property. 14 Consequently, there was no valid sale to Maura Palabrica. Ownership over the property was not transferred to her for she was merely a mortgagee. There being no title to the land that Palabrica acquired from the spouses Filoteo and Severa Pacardo, it follows that Palabrica had no title to the same land which could be conveyed to petitioner. 15 Hence there is no legal basis for petitioner to recover possession of the property. It is clear from the contract that the amount loaned to the Pacardo spouses was P950.00 and Lot No. 767 was mortgaged as security. The spouses were allowed under the contract to pay the amount of the loan on 27 January 1950 by tendering the amount of the P500.00 in cash and P450.00 cash or 18 cavans of palay at their option. The trial court made its factual finding that from 1947 when the purported sale was executed to 1972 alone, the spouses and their successors in interest delivered a total of 1,166 cavans of palay to Maura Palabrica. The delivery of 1/3 of the annual produce to Palabrica and later to petitioner continued until 1987. Under the last paragraph of Art. 1602, this produce received by the alleged vendee as rent or otherwise should be considered as interest. There is no dispute that the Pacardo spouses or their successors in interest failed to pay the amount of the loan on 27 January 1950 as stipulated in the contract although they continued to deliver the produce to Palabrica and petitioner until 1987 by way of interest on the loan. Even if we treat petitioner's action to recover possession of Lot No. 767 as one for the enforcement of her right as mortgagee, the same has already prescribed. Art. 1142 of the New Civil Code provides that a mortgage action prescribes after ten (10) years. Since 27 January 1950 when the Pacardo spouses failed to pay the loan up to 1989 when the action for recovery of possession was filed, thirty-nine (39) years had already elapsed. As a result, petitioner is not only barred by prescription from instituting her action; she is also guilty of estoppel by laches. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated 16 December 1992 sustaining that of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.