Leal vs.

Intermediate Appelate Court, November 5, 1987 Facts: -Sometime in 1941 a document compraventa written in Spanish, involving 3 parcel of land, executed by private respondents predecessors in interest, Vicente Santiago and his brother, Luis Santiago, in favor of cirilo leal. -Pursuant to this compraventa the tile over 3 Parcel of land in name of the vendors was cancelled and new on was issued in the name of cirilo leal, which immediately took possession and exercised ownership over the said land. Cirilo died 1959. The land was inherited by 6 children who among are the petitioners. -Sometime in 1966 Vicente Santiago approached the petitioners and offered to repurchase the subject properties. Petitioners, however, refused the offer. -Vicente instituted a complaints of specific performance before CFI of QC, rendering a decision dismissing the complaint. On the ground of premature and no sale nor any alienation equivalent to sale. -Vicente or private respondent appealed to the court of appeals and the latter with justice paras as one the affirmed the decision of court quo. -petitioners seasonably filed a motion to amend the dispositive portion of of the decision to cancel the annotations at the back of the transfer certificate of title issued in their favor. Private respondendt , opposition to the amend . -CA was abolished and lieu of which intermediate appellate court was established. Reassigned to the fourth civil cases division. -Resolving the motion for reconsideration the respondent court penned by justice Sison, reversed and set aside. Ordering plaintiff appellant to accept a sum off 5600. Translated to English : in case of sale, they shall not sell to others these three lots but only to the seller Vicente Santiago or to his heirs price of 5600, when the latter shall be able to pay it" Issue: whether the prohibition expressed in the compraventa is valid? Held: not valid. Ratio: -There is express prohibition against sale of the lots described in compraventa to strangers to the contract. -Sc agreed to paras ponencia that "the prohibition to sell the lots to persons other than the vendor; uncertainty a prohibition to alienate should not exceed at most a period of twenty years, otherwise there would be subversion of public policy, which naturally frown on unwarranted restrictions on the right of ownership."oscar said that contracts generally binding between parties, their assign, heirs; however under art 1255 of Spain clauses and condition which contrary to unlicenspublic Orr are null and void equabelnt to 1305 states that parties ay establish, clauses... Ot contrary to law, public policy...." public order signifies public weak- public policy Such condition which is contrary to public policy is a present prohibition to sell to third parties, amounts to a perpetual restriction on the right of ownership, specifically the owners'sright to freely dispose of his ownership. -Sc hold such prohibition, indefinite and unlimited as to time, it shall continue to be applicable even beyond the lifetime of the original parties to the contract is null. -Granted the petitioner prayer for cancellation of the annotations of the prohibitions.

-even if right to repurchase is granted under compraventa its already prescribed because the right to redeem or repurchase, in the absence of an express agreement as to time, shall last four years from the date of the contract.