G.R. No. 27890 - DECEMBER 1927 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 27890December 31, 1927 Ponciano Medel vs. Carlos N. Francisco G.R. No. 27878December 31, 1927 Clara Gonzalez vs. Gil Calimbas G.R. No. 27770December 31, 1927 Frank B. Ingersoli vs. Malabon Sugar Company G.R. No. 27764December 31, 1927 Jose M. Nava, et al. vs. Presentacion Hofilena, et al. G.R. No. 27588December 31, 1927 Roman Catholic Bishop of Nueva of Segovia vs. Provincial Board of Ilocos Norte, et al. G.R. No. 27491December 31, 1927 Teodoro R. Yangco vs. Vicente Aldanese G.R. No. 27481December 31, 1927 Ponciano Mauricio vs. Martin Gonzales G.R. No. 27480December 31, 1927 Martin Gonzales vs. Ponciano Mauricio G.R. No. 27245December 31, 1927 Leona Ramos, et al. vs. Francisco Icasiano, et al. G.R. No. 27207December 31, 1927 Herederos de Filomeno Equieres vs. Director of Lands, et al. G.R. No. 27206December 31, 1927 Rufina Nañagas, et al. vs. Municipality of San Narciso, et al. G.R. No. 27084December 31, 1927 Ambrosio T. Alojado vs. M. J. Lim Siongco, et al. G.R. No. 26786December 31, 1927 Catalino Sevilla, et al. vs. Gaudencio Tolentino G.R. No. 28205December 24, 1927 In Re: Timoteo Unson, et al. vs. Urquijo Zuloaga and Escubi G.R. No. 28151December 24, 1927 Director of Lands vs. Eduardo Gutierrez David, et al. G.R. No. 27991December 24, 1927 Philippine National Bank vs. Tan Ong Zse vda. de Tan Toco G.R. No. 27850December 24, 1927 National Exchange Company, Ltd. vs. Jose S. Ramos G.R. No. 27822December 24, 1927 Luzon Brokerages Company, Inc. vs. Juan Posadas, Jr. G.R. No. 27818December 24, 1927 Roales Brothers and Cousins vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. 27685December 24, 1927 Sebastian Martinez, et al. vs. Clemencia Graño, et al. G.R. No. 27650December 24, 1927 In Re: Florencia Diez Segundo Diez vs. Tomas Serra, et al. G.R. No. 27565December 24, 1927 Petronilo Valenzuela, et al. vs. Vicente Lopez, et al. G.R. No. 27531December 24, 1927 In Re: Victoriana Saavedra Macario Macrohon Ong Ham vs. Juan Saavedra, et al. G.R. No. 27440December 24, 1927 Jose Villaflor vs. Deogracias Tobias, et al. G.R. No. 27436December 24, 1927 Jose de la Viña y Cruz vs. Sing Juco G.R. No. 27404December 24, 1927 M. Singh vs. Tan Chay G.R. No. 25951December 24, 1927 Modesta Beltran vs. Juan Valbuena, et al. G.R. No. 27300December 17, 1927 Serafin de la Riva vs. Maria Escobar vda. de Limjap, et al. G.R. No. 28725December 17, 1927 Juan Sumulong vs. Carlos Imperial, et al. G.R. No. 27856December 16, 1927 People of the Philippines vs. Lazaro Rabadan, et al. G.R. No. 27781December 16, 1927 Antonio Medina vs. Maderera del Norte de Catanduanes, Inc. G.R. No. 27778December 16, 1927 Uy Hy and Company vs. Prudential Assurance Company, Ltd. G.R. No. 26689December 16, 1927 Leon Temporal, et al. vs. Fernando Mateo, et al. G.R. No. 26640December 16, 1927 Eleutero L. Santos vs. Maria Macapinlac, et al. G.R. No. 26545December 16, 1927 Testate Estate of Florencia R. Mateo Perfecto Gabriel vs. Rita R. Mateo, et al. G.R. No. 27847December 12, 1927 Tan It vs. Sun Insurance Company G.R. No. 28072December 10, 1927 People of the Philippines vs. Francisco de Otero, et al. G.R. No. 27045December 7, 1927 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Oluntanga Lumber, et al. G.R. No. 27877December 6, 1927 W. F. Stevenson and Company, Ltd. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. 27766December 6, 1927 La Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. 27761December 6, 1927 Philippine Sugar Centrals Agency vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. 27897December 2, 1927 Western Equipment and Supply Company, et al. vs. Fidel A. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. 27633December 2, 1927 People of the Philippines vs. Juan de Guzman, et al. G.R. No. 27859December 1, 1927 People of the Philippines vs. Amado Dayo The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Ponciano Medel vs. Carlos N. Francisco Clara Gonzalez vs. Gil Calimbas Frank B. Ingersoli vs. Malabon Sugar Company Jose M. Nava, et al. vs. Presentacion Hofilena, et al. Roman Catholic Bishop of Nueva of Segovia vs. Provincial Board of Ilocos Norte, et al. Teodoro R. Yangco vs. Vicente Aldanese Ponciano Mauricio vs. Martin Gonzales Martin Gonzales vs. Ponciano Mauricio Leona Ramos, et al. vs. Francisco Icasiano, et al. Herederos de Filomeno Equieres vs. Director of Lands, et al. Rufina Nañagas, et al. vs. Municipality of San Narciso, et al. Ambrosio T. Alojado vs. M. J. Lim Siongco, et al. Catalino Sevilla, et al. vs. Gaudencio Tolentino In Re: Timoteo Unson, et al. vs. Urquijo Zuloaga and Escubi Director of Lands vs. Eduardo Gutierrez David, et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Tan Ong Zse vda. de Tan Toco National Exchange Company, Ltd. vs. Jose S. Ramos Luzon Brokerages Company, Inc. vs. Juan Posadas, Jr. Roales Brothers and Cousins vs. Director of Lands Sebastian Martinez, et al. vs. Clemencia Graño, et al. In Re: Florencia Diez Segundo Diez vs. Tomas Serra, et al. Petronilo Valenzuela, et al. vs. Vicente Lopez, et al. In Re: Victoriana Saavedra Macario Macrohon Ong Ham vs. Juan Saavedra, et al. Jose Villaflor vs. Deogracias Tobias, et al. Jose de la Viña y Cruz vs. Sing Juco M. Singh vs. Tan Chay Modesta Beltran vs. Juan Valbuena, et al. Serafin de la Riva vs. Maria Escobar vda. de Limjap, et al. Juan Sumulong vs. Carlos Imperial, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Lazaro Rabadan, et al. Antonio Medina vs. Maderera del Norte de Catanduanes, Inc. Uy Hy and Company vs. Prudential Assurance Company, Ltd. Leon Temporal, et al. vs. Fernando Mateo, et al. Eleutero L. Santos vs. Maria Macapinlac, et al. Testate Estate of Florencia R. Mateo Perfecto Gabriel vs. Rita R. Mateo, et al. Tan It vs. Sun Insurance Company People of the Philippines vs. Francisco de Otero, et al. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Oluntanga Lumber, et al. W. F. Stevenson and Company, Ltd. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue La Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Collector of Internal Revenue Philippine Sugar Centrals Agency vs. Insular Collector of Customs Western Equipment and Supply Company, et al. vs. Fidel A. Reyes, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Juan de Guzman, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Amado Dayo The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 27890 December 31, 1927
PONCIANO MEDEL,petitioner-appellant,
vs.
CARLOS N. FRANCISCO,opponent-appellee.
Modesto Reyes and Eliseo Yamson for appellant.
Ceferino Francisco for appellee.
AVANCENA,J.:
On May 16, 1917, Carlos N. Francisco sold the land belonging to him, described certificate of title No. 3598 to Telesforo Calasan with a right of repurchase, which was noted on the back thereof on May 16, 1917. Telesforo Calasan, in turn, sold this land to Ponciano Medel on December 4, 1926.
On January 17, 1927 Ponciano Medel brought this action in the Court of First Instance for the purpose of compelling the register of deeds to cancel the notation of the right of repurchase on the title to this land on account of the time within which to exercise said the right having expired. Ponciano Medel contends that the period within which to exercise this right is four years while Carlos N. Francisco, on the other hand, contends that it is ten years. The trial court admitting that the period is ten years and it not having expired yet when this action was filed, denied the petition.lawphi1.net
The only question involved in this appeal is whether the period of the repurchase of the land, which Carlos N. Francisco reserved the right to do when the sale was made, in four or ten years. The stipulation is noted on the title in the following terms:
This sale is made with the condition that the vendor Carlos N. Francisco reserves the right to repurchase, at the cost price of this sale, a fourth part of the land above described from which he can remove earth for the sole and exclusive use of his earthen jar factory when the same is established.
According to article 1508 of the Civil Code, the right repurchase, in the absence of any express agreement, last four years and, in case of stipulation, the period shall not exceed ten years.
A term means a period of time within which an act many, or must, be performed or a fact take place. Applied to the right of repurchase, it is the time within which this right may be exercised. It necessarily involves a beginning and an end of time. The clause of the contract quoted does not express, in this case, a stipulation of time. Accordingly to its terms, the vendor Carlos N. Francisco reserved the right to redeem the landwhen he might have an earthen jar factory. This does not mean that he could repurchase the land any time before he had the earthen jar factory,but when he had it. That is especially so when it is taken into consideration that there is a condition imposed for the repurchase of the land, to wit that it is to be used solely and exclusively for the manufacture of earthen jars. According to this clause of the contract, it is evident that the establishment of an earthen jar factory is the fact that would give birth to the right of repurchase. In this sense, what is really stipulated in the clause is the suspension of the right of repurchase until the earthen jar factory has been established. If this is all, the meaning of this clause is then clear that the parties did not stipulate any time for exercising the right or repurchase; and, in accordance with the law, the right lasts no longer than four years from the date of the contract, which period had already expired without having been made use of.
These four years must be counted from the date of the contract notwithstanding the suspension of the exercise of the right of repurchase, because the stipulation of this suspension is null and void, it having exceeded four years, which constitutes the legal period of this right. (Santos vs. Heirs of Crisostomo and Tiongson, 41 Phil., 342.)
The judgment appealed from is reversed and it is held that the right of repurchase reserved by the vendor Carlos N. Francisco has expired, and the cancellation by the register of deeds of the notation of this right on the title must be, as it is hereby, ordered, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real JJ., concur.