8/12/2019 De La Vega vs. Ballilos (1916)

1/3

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-9957 August 8, 1916

PERFECTO DE LA VEGA, ET AL.,plaintiffs-appellees,vs.TOMAS ALL!LOS "o# AL!ELOS$,defendant-appellant.

Silvestre Apacible for appellants.P. Joya Admana for appellees.

TORRES, J.%

This appeal by bill of exceptions as !aised by counsel fo! the defendant f!o" the#ud$"ent of %anua!y &', ()(*, in hich the Cou!t of +i!st nstance of Batan$asabsolved the defendant f!o" the co"plaint ith !espect to the pa!cels of land Nos.&, ', *, and in the !ou$h setch ad"itted by a$!ee"ent of the pa!ties, and

o!de!ed hi" to !etu!n and delive! to the plaintiffs the pa!cels of land desi$nated onthe said setch as Nos. (, / and 0, upon the plaintiffs payin$ to the defendant thesu" of P*'12 ith the costs of the p!oceedin$s a$ainst the appellant.

By a !itin$ of May ), ()(', plaintiffs th!ou$h thei! counsel filed a co"plaint in theCou!t of +i!st nstance of Batan$as, alle$in$ as a cause of action that they e!ethe sole hei!s of thei! co""on p!edecesso!s in inte!est, 3icto! de la 3e$a and4!sula de 5u6"an, ho at thei! deaths e!e in possession of a pa!cel of land"easu!in$ sixcavanesand a half, situated in the ba!!io of 7ao of the pueblo ofBalayan, Batan$as ith the "etes and bounds $iven and desc!ibed in the !ou$hsetch specifically "entioned in Pa!a$!aph of the co"plaint2 that the plaintiffs hadcontinued in the co""on andpro indivisopossession of the said pa!cel of land,

hich as divided into seven pa!ts o! lots, as seen by the !ou$h setch attached tothe co"plaint2 that about the yea! ()/, +idel de la 3e$a, one of the coone!s ofthe said p!ope!ty, in conside!ation of a loan of P*'1 hich he had !eceived f!o"the defendant To"as Balielos 8o! Ballilos9 conveyed to the latte! the pa!cels ofland Nos. (, *, and :, by "eans of a cont!act of antich!esis, until such ti"e as thesaid debto!, o! so"e one of the coone!s of the land, should !etu!n the saidbo!!oed su"2 that subse;uently, to it, in the yea! ()1/, the plaintiffs, ith theexception of Polica!po de la 3e$a, successively bo!!oed f!o" the defendant thesu"s of P*1, P( and P:1, unde! the sa"e cont!act of antich!esis, but this ti"ethey $ave as secu!ity the lots "a!ed Nos. &, ', and 0, f!o" hich lots the

defendant as to collect the inte!est due, as in fact he did, f!o" the date of theencu"b!ance of the said pa!cels of land up to the ti"e the co"plaint as filedhen they offe!ed to pay the defendant the said su"s of P*'1, P*1, P(, andP:1, a total of P/*, in o!de! to !eac;ui!e the said pa!cels2 but that the defendant!efused and still unlafully !efuses to !eceive the said su"s and has app!op!iatedto hi"self the said pa!cels of land. The plaintiffs the!efo!e p!ayed that thedefendant be o!de!ed to delive! the !esto!e the said pa!cels of land to the", afte!they should have paid hi" the su" of P/*, and that he be fu!the! o!de!ed to payto the plaintiffs the su" of P/11 fo! the losses and da"a$es suffe!ed by the", ith

the costs of the p!oceedin$s a$ainst the defendant.

8/12/2019 De La Vega vs. Ballilos (1916)

2/3

The appeal in this case is the!efo!e !est!icted to the pa!cels of land Nos. (, /, and0 hich defendant in the #ud$"ent appealed f!o" is o!de!ed to delive! and !esto!eto the plaintiffs upon pay"ent to hi" of the su" of P*'1, and the ;uestion he!e!aised is hethe! the deed of conveyance of the said pa!cels of land, executed by+idel de la 3e$a in favo! of the defendant on %uly &), ():, and found in thedocu"ent Exhibit > is a cont!act of antich!esis, as contended by the plaintiffs, o!hethe! it is a sale unde!pacto de retro, as the defendant-appellant in thisinstance alle$es it to be.

Acco!din$ to the stipulation of the pa!ties, the lots !efe!!ed to on this appeal a!ethose "a!ed Nos. (, /, and 0 on the !ou$h setch shon on pa$e && of the bill ofexceptions, th!ee pa!cels of land that e!e the sub#ect "atte! of the cont!actexecuted beteen +idel de la 3e$a and the defendant and contained in thedocu"ent Exhibit >, dated Balayan, Batan$as, %uly &), ():.

n o!de! to dete!"ine the natu!e of and to classify the said cont!act, the essentialpa!t of the docu"ent Exhibit >, as found at pa$es (: to ( of the bill of exceptions,is t!ansc!ibed he!e belo. The pa!ts the!eof hich !efe! to the na"es of thecoone!s of the to pa!cels of land "entioned in the cont!act, and to the a!ea,"etes, and bounds of each one of these to pa!cels, have been o"itted. The saidessential pa!t is as follos?

. . . . and he!eas on this day have "o!t$a$ed the to pa!cels of landabove-"entioned to the said 7. To"as Ballilos fo! the su" of P*'1 and fo!the te!" of ei$ht yea!s, countin$ f!o" this day, at the expi!ation of hich "ay !edee" the"2 that should not then do so, the said lands shallcontinue to be "o!t$a$ed until have the "oney available he!eith the!edee" the"2 the!efo!e, he!eby "o!t$a$e the to pa!cels of landhe!einabove "entioned to 7. To"as Ballilos fo! the said su" of P*'1,hich have !eceived f!o" hi" in cu!!ent coin, and as the sa"e as not!eceived in ou! p!esence, e aive the exception of "oney not paid incash2 the!efo!e, hencefo!th and du!in$ the pe!iod above stipulated, $!antand convey "y one!ship and possession in the said to pa!cels of landto the said 7. To"as Ballilos in o!de! that he "ay "ana$e and en#oy the

sa"e in conside!ation of the su" fo! hich they a!e "o!t$a$ed.

The!e bein$ p!esent 7. To"as Ballilos . . . ., he stated that he had!eceived in "o!t$a$e, to his enti!e satisfaction, the to pa!cels of tillableland above "entioned, unde! the conditions and fo! the ti"e stipulated, fo!the su" of P*'1, hich he has al!eady delive!ed to the said 7. +idel de a3e$a, ho in tu!n states that the said lands a!e f!ee of all cha!$es andencu"b!ances and binds hi"self to a!!ant this "o!t$a$e in case of le$alp!oceedin$s.

The said cont!act appa!ently !eco!ds a loan of P*'1, secu!ed by a "o!t$a$e of theafo!e"entioned to pa!cels of land and payable ithin the pe!iod of ei$ht yea!s, o!ithin such ti"e as the debto! +idel de la 3e$a "i$ht be able to pay his debt and!edee" the said land.

8/12/2019 De La Vega vs. Ballilos (1916)

3/3

ART. (*. The c!edito! does not ac;ui!e the one!ship of the !ealp!ope!ty by nonpay"ent of the debt ithin the te!" a$!eed upon.

Any stipulation to the cont!a!y shall be void. But in this case the c!edito!"ay de"and, in the "anne! p!esc!ibed in the la of civil p!ocedu!e, thepay"ent of the debto! o! the sale of the !eality.

ART. (/. The cont!actin$ pa!ties "ay stipulate that the inte!est of thedebt be set off a$ainst the f!uits of the estate $iven in antich!esis.

This cont!act is so"ehat si"ila! to those of pled$e and "o!t$a$e and fo! this!eason a!ticle (: p!esc!ibed that ce!tain a!ticles !elative to these latte! cont!actsa!e applicable to cont!acts of antich!esis, fo! both the fo!"e! and the latte!cont!acts a!e co"p!ised in title (/, boo *, of the Civil Code.

The cou!ts const!uction as to the fo!" of the cont!act ente!ed into by the pa!tiesas found in the #ud$"ent appealed f!o", is fully suppo!ted by the la, thepleadin$s, and the evidence. The cont!act ente!ed into by the cont!actin$ pa!tieshich has p!oduced beteen the" !i$hts and obli$ations is in fact one ofantich!esis, fo! a!ticle (&( of the Civil Code p!esc!ibes a"on$ othe! thin$s that ifthe o!ds should appea! to conflict ith the evident intent of the cont!actin$

pa!ties, the intent shall p!evail. A!ticle (&' p!ovides that hoeve! $ene!al thete!"s of the cont!act "ay be, they should not be unde!stood to include thin$s andcases diffe!ent f!o" those ith !e$a!d to hich the inte!ested pa!ties intended tocont!act2 and, fu!the!, a!ticle (&* of the sa"e code says that if any stipulation of acont!act should ad"it of seve!al diffe!ent "eanin$s, that "ost suitable to $ive iteffect should be applied.

n the said Exhibit > it as stipulated that even afte! ei$ht yea!s the debto!, theone! of the p!ope!ty, "i$ht !edee" it heneve! he should have the "eans to payhis debt and !ecove! the lands $iven in antich!esis to his c!edito! ho "i$ht toldthe" in usuf!uct in conside!ation fo! the "oney he had loaned2 and as thefo!e$oin$ a!ticles of the Civil Code fixes no te!" fo! the !ecove!y of the en#oy"entof i""ovables $iven in antich!esis, p!ovided that the debto! p!eviously pay hat

he oes to this c!edito!, the plaintiffs have an un;uestionable !i$ht to !ecove!pa!cels Nos. (, /, and 0 of the land desi$nated in the "ap o! plan ad"itted bya$!ee"ent of the pa!ties, afte! fi!st payin$ the debt of P*'1 to the defendant-c!edito!.

By the fo!e$oin$ !easons, the e!!o!s assi$ned by the appellant to the #ud$"ent!ende!ed in this suit have been fully !efuted, and, the!efo!e, as the said #ud$"ent isin acco!dance ith the la and the evidence, it should be, as it is he!eby, affi!"ed,ith the costs a$ainst the defendant. @o o!de!ed.