Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > November 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15312 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: JUAN TACDORO v. JESUS ARCENAS

110 Phil 222:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-15312. November 29, 1960.]

In re: Petition for Consolidation of Ownership in Pacto de Retro Sale of a House. JUAN TACDORO, petitioner and appellee, v. JESUS ARCENAS, oppositor and Appellant.

Desquitado & Acurantes for Appellant.

Armando V. Cortez for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. SALES; SALE WITH RIGHT OF REPURCHASE; PETITION TO CONSOLIDATE OWNERSHIP; WHAT RULES GOVERN. — The petition to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code is not merely an incident to an action or a special proceeding (Sec. 1, Rule 26, Rules of Court; 60 C.J.S. 7), but is an ordinary civil should be governed by the rules established for summons found in Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, stating, among other things, that upon the "filing of the complaint, the clerk of court shall forthwith issue the corresponding summons to the defendant" (Sec. 1). The defendant would then be entitled to a period of fifteen (15) days from service of such summons within which to file either a motion to dismiss the petition (Sec. 1, Rule 8) or an answer (Sec. 1, Rule 9). The failure of the Court to properly observe these rules is sufficient cause for validly attacking its consequent judgments and/or orders even on jurisdictional grounds (See Salmon & Pacific Commercial Co. v. Tan Cueco, Et Al., 36 Phil. 556).

2. ID.; ID; PURPOSE OF LAW IN REQUIRING JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF THE CONSOLIDATION IN THE VENDEE A RETRO. — The obvious intent of the Civil Code in requiring a judicial confirmation of the consolidation in the vendee a retro of the ownership over the property sold, is not only to have all doubts over the true nature of the transaction speedily ascertained and decided, but also to prevent the interposition of buyers in good faith while such determination is being made. Under the former method of consolidation by a mere extra-judicial affidavit of the buyer a retro, the latter could easily cut off any claims of the seller by disposing of the property, after such consolidation, to strangers in good faith and without notice. The chances of the seller a retro to recover his property would thus be nullified, even if the transaction were really proved to be a mortgage and not a sale.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J. B. L., J.:


On December 22, 1958, petitioner-appellee Juan Tacdoro filed in the Court of First Instance of Davao a petition (docketed as Misc. Case No. 374) alleging, among other things, that appellant Jesus Arcenas had sold to the petitioner, con pacto de retro, a residential house situated at Bolton Street, Davao City, and covered under Tax Declaration No. R-1452; that February 16, 1957 was the original expiry dated fixed by the parties for the repurchase, but, upon subsequent agreement, the period was extended for another year counted from the aforesaid date; and that the term of the repurchase had expired without the right of repurchase having been exercised by the vendor. Accordingly, petitioner prayed that the court order a judicial consolidation of ownership over the property sold pursuant to the provisions of Article 1607 of the Civil Code.

The petition was heard on December 24, 1958, the date set by the petitioner. Appellant was served a copy of the said petition two days previously, or on December 22, 1958; but no summons was served by the court.

On January 6, 1959, the court a quo entered an order consolidating ownership of the property in question in favor of the petitioner. On January 10, 1959, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that the lower court had no jurisdiction to consider the petition of the appellee for lack of summons, and that the denominated pacto de retro sale was in fact an equitable mortgage. This motion was denied by the court in its order of January 21, 1959.

From the two orders aforesaid, Jesus Arcenas appealed to us on points of law.

The appeal is well taken. Article 1607 of the Civil Code states:ClubJuris

"In case of real property, the consolidation of ownership in the vendee by virtue of the failure of the vendor to comply with the provisions of article 1616 shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property without a judicial order, after the vendor has been duly heard." (Italics supplied)

The code did not provide for any specific procedure to be observed in securing the judicial order above-mentioned. Accordingly, we should fall back on the ordinary rules of procedure applicable. As correctly pointed out by the appellant, the petition to consolidate ownership under the article aforequoted does not partake of the nature of a motion, 1 it not being merely an incident to an action or a special proceeding (see Sec. 1, Rule 26, Rules of Court; 60 C.J.S. 7), but is an ordinary civil action cognizable by the Court of First Instance. As such ordinary action, it should be governed by the rules established for summons found in Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, stating, among other things, that upon the "filing of the complaint, the clerk of court shall forthwith issue the corresponding summons to the defendant" (Sec. 1). The defendant would then be entitled to a period of fifteen (15) days from service of such summons within which to file either a motion to dismiss the petition (Sec. 1, Rule 8) or an answer (Sec. 1, Rule 9). The failure of the court to properly observe these rules is sufficient cause for validly attacking its consequent judgments and or orders even on jurisdictional grounds (See Salmon & Pacific Commercial Co. v. Tan Cueco, Et Al., 36 Phil., 556).

That the vendor or retro should be made a party-defendant to the proceedings and, therefore, be entitled to notice of the same, is clearly inferable from the codal provision that the judicial order consolidating ownership in the vendee a retro shall not issue unless "after the vendor has been duly heard" (Art. 1607, Civil Code, supra); which statement would also imply that the proceedings therein to be taken are in no way to be construed as merely summary in nature. This conclusion is further fortified by other provisions of the new Civil code such as articles 1602, 1603, 1604, 1605 and 1606, which are all indicated of the legislative intent to accord the vendor a retro the maximum safeguards for the protection of his legal rights under the true agreement of the parties. Experience has demonstrated too often that many sales with right of repurchase have been devised only to circumvent or ignore our usury laws and for this reason, the law looks upon them with disfavor (Report of the Code Commission, pp. 63-64). When, therefore, Article 1607 speaks of a judicial order after the vendor shall have been duly heard, it contemplates none other than a regular court proceeding under the governing Rules of Court, wherein the parties are given full opportunity to lay bare before the court their real covenant. Furthermore, the obvious intent of our Civil Code, in requiring a judicial confirmation of the consolidation in the vendee a retro of the ownership over the property sold, is not only to have all doubts over the true nature of the transaction speedily ascertained and decided, but also to prevent the interposition of buyers in good faith while such determination is being made. Under the former method of consolidation by a mere extra-judicial affidavit of the buyer a retro, the latter could easily cut off any claims of the seller by disposing of the property, after such consolidation, to strangers in good faith and without notice. The chances of the seller a retro to recover his property would thus be nullified, even if the transaction were really proved to be a mortgage and not a sale.

The Court below, therefor, erred in considering that judicial consolidation of ownership under Article 1607 of the new Civil Code can be had by a mere motion with three days’ notice, instead of requiring an independent proceeding, for which docket fees are chargeable. As aforesaid, a motion could only exist as an incident to a principal suit or proceeding.

It is still premature to decide here and now whether the agreement in question is a true pacto de retro sale or in reality a mere equitable mortgage. Upon the other hand, the arguments advanced by the appellant convince us that his exceptions to the orders appealed from were not taken merely for frivolous reasons.

Wherefore, the orders appealed from are set aside; and appellant Jesus Arcenas is hereby given a period of 15 days from the finality of this judgment within which to file in the court below his answer to the petition. The case is ordered remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Costs in this instance against petitioner-appellee Juan Tacdoro.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. As the lower court has apparently construed the instant petition to be.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



November-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11001 November 23, 1960 - FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    110 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-12125 November 23, 1960 - LUIS G. ABLAZA v. AMANCIO SYCIP

    110 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13251 November 23, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    110 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-14223 November 23, 1960 - SABINA SANTIAGO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-14569 November 23, 1960 - BENITO CODILLA v. JOSE L. MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-14641 November 23, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA

    110 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-14764 November 23, 1960 - CENON VILLANUEVA v. BARBER WILHELMSEN LINE

    110 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-14864 November 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO SOLON

    110 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-14897 November 23, 1960 - JESUS NEPOMUCENO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    110 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. L-15904 November 23, 1960 - ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-16022 November 23, 1960 - NATALIA B. NICOMEDES v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    110 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-13114 November 25, 1960 - ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA v. ESTHER PERALTA

    110 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-15276 November 28, 1960 - EPIFANIO J. ALANO v. CLARO CORTES

    110 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-7330 November 29, 1960 - JOSE BENARES v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

    110 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-10508 November 29, 1960 - PO ENG TRADING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-10810 November 29, 1960 - JOSEFINA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA BLANCO v. COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    110 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-10836 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: PROCOPY MOSCAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    110 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-11325 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOTO BALONTO

    110 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-11482 November 29, 1960 - ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG v. JOSE FERNANDEZ

    110 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-11837 November 29, 1960 - MAGDALENA G. VDA. DE CUAYCONG v. CRISTETA L. VDA. DE SENGBENGCO

    110 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-12275 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO RUBINIAL

    110 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-12508 November 29, 1960 - JOSE L. LAGRIMAS v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

    110 Phil 127

  • G.R. Nos. L-13107-08 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIO DELMAS

    110 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13173 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SORIO

    110 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-14217 November 29, 1960 - LUZ H. COLOMA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-14274 November 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    110 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-14283 November 29, 1960 - GIL BALBUNA v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

    110 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-14382 November 29, 1960 - REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-14559 November 29, 1960 - REYNALDO MADRIÑAN v. VICENTE G. SINCO

    110 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-14567 November 29, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-14594 November 29, 1960 - SEVERINO CAÑGAS v. TAN CHUAN LEONG

    110 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14611 November 29, 1960 - EVANGELINO LASERNA v. MARIA JAVIER

    110 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-14656 November 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-14682 November 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO EVARISTO v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA

    110 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-14690 November 29, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. JOSE T. GARCIA, SR.

    110 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-14769 November 29, 1960 - LAURO P. LEVISTE v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    110 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-14780 November 29, 1960 - POMPEYO L. PALARCA v. RESTITUTA BAROL DE ANZON

    110 Phil 194

  • G.R. Nos. L-14785 & L-14923 November 29, 1960 - FELIX ABE v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION

    110 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-14983 November 29, 1960 - AGRIPINA VDA. DE ALBURO v. FILOMENA VDA. DE UMBAO

    110 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-15231 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO PERVEZ

    110 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-15271 November 29, 1960 - ONG YET MUA HARDWARE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    110 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-15312 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: JUAN TACDORO v. JESUS ARCENAS

    110 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-15439 November 29, 1960 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN.

    110 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-15551 November 29, 1960 - DAVID CONSUNJI v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-15593 November 29, 1960 - MARIA BALDO v. PEDRO GUERRERO

    110 Phil 235

  • G.R. Nos. L-15618, L-16000 & L-16116 November 29, 1960 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-15671 November 29, 1960 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. v. RICHARD A. KLEPPER

    110 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-15804 November 29, 1960 - SANCHO B. DE LEON v. ESTANISLAO FAUSTINO

    110 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-15925 November 29, 1960 - ESTELA FRANCISCO DE LASALA v. PEDRO SARNATE

    110 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-16028 November 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO URTULA

    110 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-16030 November 29, 1960 - SEGUNDA INOCANDO v. JUAN INOCANDO

    110 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-16068 November 29, 1960 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF GERVACIO TANJANGCO

    110 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-16093 November 29, 1960 - LOCAL 7, PRESS & PRINTING FREE WORKERS v. EMILIANO TABIGNE

    110 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-16406 November 29, 1960 - PRIMO QUETULIO v. DELFIN B. FLORES

    110 Phil 284

  • G.R. Nos. L-16409 & L-16416 November 29, 1960 - ALEJANDRO L. GUMPAL v. MANUEL ARRANZ

    110 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-16523 November 29, 1960 - LUIS G. PERALTA v. FELIXBERTO SERRANO

    110 Phil 301