Leah v. IAC, G.R. No.

L-65425
IRENEO LEAL, JOSE LEAL, CATALINA LEAL, BERNABELA LEAL, VICENTE LEAL EUIOGIA LEAL
PATERNO RAMOS, MACARIO DEL ROSARIO, MARGARITA ALBERTO, VICTORIA TORRES, JUSTINA
MANUEL, JULIAN MANUEL, MELANIA SANTOS, CLEMENTE SAMARIO, MARIKINA VALLEY, INC.,
MIGUELA MENDOZA, and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (4th Civil Cases Division), and VICENTE
SANTIAGO (Substituted by SALUD M. SANTIAGO), respondents.

Facts:

A document entitled “Compraventa”, involving three parcels of land, was sold with annotations of right to
repurchase only by the Santiago brothers themselves or by their heirs to Cirilio Leal the deceased father of
some of the petitioners, when Cirilo died on December 10, 1959, the subject lands were inherited by his six
children.

Sometime before 1966-1967, Vicente Santiago offered to repurchase the subject properties. The
petitioners refused the offer. Vicente Santiago instituted a complaint for specific performance before the
then Court of First Instance of Quezon City on August 2, 1967.

All the trial, rendered its decision dismissing the complaint, the private respondent appealed. The
petitioners filed a motion to amend the annotations at the back of the Transfer certificates of Title. The
private respondent filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the above decision and an opposition to
petitioners’ motion to amend.

The decision is hereby reversed and set aside and another one is rendered ordering petitioner-appellees to
accept the sum of P5,600.00 from respondent-appellant as repurchase price of the lots and thereafter to
execute a deed of repurchase to appellant Salud M. Santiago.

Issue:

whether or not the annotation at the back of the title is contrary to law.

Held:

Yes. The condition present on the contract is contrary to public policy because of the restriction to the
right of ownership, specifically the owner’s right to freely dispose of his properties. According to Art. 1306,
which states: “That contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as
they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or
public policy.”