GREGORIO ESTRADA v. PROCULO NOBLE [CA] 49 O.G.

139

G.R. No. L-2726. September 29, 1950.

FACTS: Proculo Noble received from his father, Maximo Noble, a land through
a public deed of sale after payment of certain amount. The sale was subject to
a condition wherein the vendor, his heirs and assigns shall have the right to
repurchase the said land in a specific time. After the lapse of the period agreed
upon, the right to repurchase is extinguished and the vendee shall be the
absolute and unconditional owner of the said land without executing an
instrument. Proculo alleged that the sale entered into was an absolute sale of
land and it was only named as a sale with right to repurchase to prohibit him
from disposing the property. After some time, Maximo Noble sell the said land
to Gregorio Estrada.

A case arises between Noble and Estrada. Trial court ruled in favor of Estrada
and ordered defendant to execute a deed of resale in favor of Estrada for the
amount of P700 which plaintiff offered for repurchase and in case defendant
refuses to execute a deed of resale, Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur is
ordered to execute a deed of resale of the same property in favor of the plaintiff
for the sum of P700 in Philippine currency and the defendant is ordered to pay
the cost of the suit. The appellant questions the decision rendered by the Court
as it the amount to be paid for the resale of the land does not commensurate to
the amount paid by the defendant at the time he bought the property.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the transaction entered into by Maximo and Proculo Noble was an
absolute sale? NO.

2. Whether the court should take judicial notice of the Ballantine scale of
values? YES.

RATIO: The deed which evidenced the transaction between Maximino and
Proculo is clearly a deed of sale with right to repurchase. The statement given
by Proculo saying that the sale was absolute and that it was only named a
ssale with right to repurchase to prevent the disposal of the land is not
corroborated by any other evidence of record either direct or circumstantial
thus cannot be given weight.

The plaintiff has acquired the right to redeem the property in question. While at
the time of the deed was executed, Maximino could not have sold and conveyed
ownership of the property since a sale with right to repurchase transfers legal
title to the vendee nevertheless said deed validly conveyed all his rights and
interests in the property, which obviously included the right to repurchase to
the plaintiff. Estrada approached Proculo offering to repurchase the property
for the sum of P700 but Proculo refused the offer. Thus, Estrada made a bona
fide offer to repurchase the property with tender of the redemption price, within
the period of redemption agreed upon. Filing of this complaint was equivalent
to an offer to redeem and had the effect of preserving the right of redemption.
Such conversion table was submitted by Dr. D. L. Ballantine to the President of
the Philippines in his capacity as economic adviser of the Commonwealth
Government. It contained a recommendation for the adoption of measure which
were greatly needed to solve the problem created by transactions made during
the Japanese occupation and to hasten the economic recovery of the country.
The table was embodied in a bill which the President of the Philippines sent to
the Philippine Congress for enactment on December 13, 1945. It is therefore,
an official document whose publication constituted a leading event of general
interest and whose provisions are widely known and have played an important
part in the contemporary political history of the country of which courts of
justice could take judicial cognizance.

Computation made by the trial court was correct. Computed based on the
Ballantine scale, the value is around P538.88 thus the estimate made by the
court which is P700 is sufficiently liberal and justly compensates the appellant.
He is also entitled to reimbursement of the amount of P400 which he spent in
the construction of the dam, such is considered as useful expense.

FULLTEXT

[G.R. No. L-2726. September 29, 1950.]

GREGORIO ESTRADA, Plaintiff, v. PROCULO NOBLE, Defendant.

SYLLABUS

1. COURTS; SUPREME COURT; JURISDICTION; APPEALS INVOLVING ONLY THE

ERRORS OR QUESTIONS OF LAW. — Among the cases over which the
Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction, are those in which only
errors or questions of law are involved. Where appellant in his notice of
appeal state that the issues to be raised in the appeal are mostly questions
of law, and in his brief he assigns errors involving questions of fact, the
appeal falls within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.

DECISION

PARAS, J.:
This is an action to redeem a parcel of land worth about P3,000. The Court of First
Instance of Camarines Sur rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. In the notice
of appeal filed on November 22, 1948, the defendant announced his intention to
appeal to the Supreme Court "inasmuch as the issues involved therein are mostly
questions of law." The record was accordingly elevated to this Court. Several errors
assigned in the brief for defendant-appellant unquestionably refer to questions of
fact.

Among the cases over which the Supreme Court has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction, are those in which only errors or questions of law are involved.
(Constitution, Art. VIII, see. 2, par. 5; see. 17, Rep. Act No. 296.) Conformably to
this constitutional and statutory precept, the Rules of Court (see. 3, Rule 42)
provide that "where the appeal is based purely on questions of law, the appellant
shall so state in his notice of appeal, and then no other questions shall be allowed,
and the evidence need not be elevated." cralaw virtua1aw library

The case at bar is clearly not one falling under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court. In the first place, the appellant expressly stated in his notice of
appeal that the issues involved in the appeal are "mostly questions of law," an
expression plainly not synonymous to "only errors or questions of law." In the
second place, in accordance with his notice of appeal, the appellant has assigned in
his brief several errors involving questions of fact. This, the appellant has
undoubtedly the right to do, because in his notice of appeal he did not state that
the appeal is "based purely on questions of law," as provided in section 3 of Rule 42
of the Rules of Court.

The present appeal, involving questions of fact and of law, falls within the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals (sec. 29, Rep. Act No. 296) and must
therefore be certified to said court, pursuant to section 31 of Republic Act No. 296
which provides that "all cases which may be erroneously brought to the Supreme
Court or to the Court of Appeals shall be sent to the proper court, which shall hear
the same, as if it had originally been brought before it. "Wherefore, let this case be
forwarded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ.,
concur.