You are on page 1of 4

Flores vs.

On February 27, 1950, Valentin Gallano sold his parcel of coconut and rice land situated in
Matnog, Sorsogon to Alfonso Flores with a right of repurchase within four (4) years from the
date of the sale, for a price of P2,550.00. Then on February 26, 1958, Gallano sold in an
absolute manner the same land to Johnson So for the price of P5,000.00. On March 6, 1958
Alfonso executed affidavit of consolidation of ownership and its subsequent registration in
the Office of the Register of Deeds of Sorsogon.
Johnson So filed an action for specific performance before the Court of First Instance against
Alfonso Flores to effect the redemption of the land. Johnson So contends that the Pacto de
Retro Sale a mere mortgage to secure a loan.
The lower court decided in favor of Johnson So, holding that the contract is indeed a contract
of sale of a parcel of land with the reservation in favor of the vendor a retro of the right to
repurchase, however the registration of Alfonso did not make his ownership over the land in
question absolute and indefeasible because of non-compliance with Articles 1606 and 1607
of the New Civil Code, which require a judicial order for consolidation of the title of vendee a
whether or not the execution of the affidavit of consolidation of ownership by Alfonso Flores
and its subsequent registration in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Sorsogon made his
ownership over the land in question absolute and indefeasible.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and declared Alfonso Flores the
absolute owner of the subject property. The pacto de retro sale between Gallano and Flores
was executed when the Civil Code of Spain was still in effect. It is provided in Article 1509
thereof that if the vendor does not comply with the provisions of Article 1518, (i.e. to return
the price, plus expenses) the vendee shall acquire irrevocably the ownership of the thing
sold. Consequently, since the pacto de retro sale in question, which was executed in
February of 1950, before the effectivity of the New Civil Code in August of 1950, was a
contract with a resolutory condition, and the condition was still pending at the time the new
law went into effect, the provisions of the old Civil Code would still apply. The right of
ownership was already vested in Alfonso Flores way back in 1954 when Gallano's failed to
redeem within the stipulated period.
Pertinent articles:

Art. 1606. The right referred to in Article 1601, in the absence of an express agreement, shall last
four years from the date of the contract.
Should there be an agreement, the period cannot exceed ten years.

However, the vendor may still exercise the right to repurchase within thirty days from the time
final judgment was rendered in a civil action on the basis that the contract was a true sale with
right to repurchase. (1508a)
Art. 1607. 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.
"Art. 2252. Changes made and new provisions and rules laid down by this Code which may
prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the old legislation shall have no
retroactive effect. . ."
"Art. 2255. The former laws shall regulate acts and contracts with a condition or period which
were executed or entered into before the effectivity of this Code, even though the condition or
period may still be pending at the time this body of laws goes into effect."

Etcuban vs. CA

Dominico Etcuban together with his 11 co-heirs inherited a land from their deceased father.
Thereafter the 11 co-heirs executed in favor of the Songalias 11 deeds of sale of their respective
shares in the co-ownership for the total sum of P26,340.00.
Dominico Etcuban alleged that his co-owners sold their respective shares without giving due
notice to him as a co-owner notwithstanding his intimations to buy all their respective shares.
On the other hand, Songalia, denying Dominicos allegation, argued that Dominico came to know
of the sale of the land in August, 1968. Acting on this knowledge, Dominico wrote to Songalia on
August 15, 1968 about the matter; and thereafter Jesus Songalia personally went to the office of
the counsel of Dominico to inform him of the sale of the disputed land to them. Another demand
letter was received on May 30, 1969 by Songalia from the lawyers of Dominico Etcuban but on
both occasions, no action was taken by Dominico despite the information he received from
Songalia thru his counsel and that consequently Dominico lost his right to redeem under Art.
1623 of the new Civil Code because the right of redemption may be exercised only within 30
days from notice of sale and plaintiff was definitely notified of the sale years ago as shown by the
Etcuban contends that vendors (his co-heirs) should be the ones to give him written notice and
not the vendees (Songalias).
The trial court allowed plaintiff to exercise his right of redemption while the Court of Appeals
reserved the decision ruling that that petitioner is barred from redeeming the subject property
for his failure to make a valid tender of the sale price of the land paid by the defendants within
the period fixed by Art. 1623 of the Civil Code.
Whether or not Dominico Etcuban has a right of redemption over the property

The court held that the notice required in Article 1623 does not prescribe any particular form of
notice, nor any distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner. So long therefore, as the latter
is informed in writing of the sale and the particulars thereof, the 30 days for redemption start
running, and the redemptioner has no real cause to complain.
Written notice was given to plaintiff-appellee in the form of an answer with counterclaim to the
complaint in Civil Case No. BN-109 which appears on the records to have been filed on March 18,
1972. This notice is sufficient to inform the plaintiff about the sale and the reckoning date for the
30-day period commenced upon receipt thereof. Since the answer with counterclaim was filed on
March 18,1972, the deposit of the redemption price on May 27, 1974 by petitioner was clearly
outside the 30-day period of legal redemption.