[ G.R. No. L-1826. August 05, 1949 ] 84 Phil. 269
[ G.R. No. L-1826. August 05, 1949 ]
JOSE L. GOMEZ ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. MIGUELA TABIA, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
This case originated from the Court of First Instance of Laguna where Jose L. Gomez and his wife Sinforasa Azores, claiming to be owners and in actual possession of a parcel of land covered by T. T. No. 19817, filed an action against Miguela Tabia for the purpose of securing judgments: (a) compelling the defendant to disclose the facts upon which she based her claim to the property; (b) declaring thereafter that the defendant has no title or interest said parcel; (c) declaring plaintiffs’ title thereto as valid and binding as against the whole world; and, (d) perpetually restraining defendant from asserting her supposed rights to said real property. The action by the plaintiffs was founded on a deed of sale with pacto de retro, Exhibit A executed by the defendant Miguela in favor of the plaintiffs on June 24, 1944, on the parcel above referred to for the sum of P5,000 in Japanese military notes. The stipulation about the redemption by the defendant is contained in the following paragraph of the deed:
“That our agreement is to the effect that within 30 days after the expiration of one year from June 24, 1944, the aforementioned land may be redeemed or repurchased ‘sa ganito ding halaga’ (at the same price), and should the said land be not redeemed, the spouses Jose L. Gomez and Sinforoza Azores shall be the owners thereof, and this sale shall be final, without the necessity of preparing or executing any document.”
The Court of First Instance of Laguna, after hearing, found that in 1945, after liberation, but before the expiration of the period for redemption the defendant tendered P500, Philippine currency to the plaintiffs to redeem the land, but the tender was refused. The defendant then deposited the sum of P100, Philippine Currency, with the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Laguna and tried to deposit the sum of P5,000 in Japanese war notes in the same court, for the redemption of the land which had been refused by the plaintiff. Interpreting the paragraph of the deed we have quoted above, the lower court held that the intention of the parties was to redeem the land in an amount equivalent, to the value of the P5,000 in Japanese military notes. The lower court further found that on the date of the sale on June 24, 1944, the rate of exchange of P1, Philippine money with Japanese military notes was one-to-thirty, so that the equivalent of P5,000 in Japanese military notes would be P150 in Philippine currency, and that, inasmuch as the defendant had made a valid tender of P500 Philippine currency, which was refused by the plaintiff, she thereby preserved, her right to redeem the land in question. In view thereof, the court held that if the defendant added P50 to the P100 she had deposited in court to pay the plaintiffs, the latter would be compelled to execute in her favor the corresponding deed of reconveyance.
Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals by the plaintiffs, the latter court found, as did the trial court that the purchase price of P5,000 in Japanese war notes was the aggregate of the different loans contracted by the defendant from the plaintiffs since 1943, said total of P5,000 having been converted by the parties into the purchase price of the parcel already mentioned. Interpreting the stipulation regarding redemption, particularly the phrase “sa ganito ding halaga” (at the same price), the Court of Appeals, like the Court of First Instance, held that the intention of the parties was to have the land redeemed in a sun equivalent to the value of the P5,000 Japanese military notes, and, by applying the Ballantine schedule, and, considering the dates of the different loans since 1943, the Court of Appeals found that P790.26 was the equivalent of the P5,000 in Japanese military notes. The Court then held that, upon payment of this amount, tie defendant can have the land reconveyed to her. The Court of Appeals, further held that inasmuch as the deed of sale with, pacto de retro was never registered in the office of the register of deeds, and that the owner’s duplicate transfer certificate of title covering the parcel was still in the name of Simeona Bautista, mother of defendant Miguela, pursuant to the provisions of the Land Registration Act, what Miguela sold by virtue of the deed of sale with pacto de retro was her right and interest, as heir, in the land, and that in case Miguela failed to redeem the parcel, the plaintiffs may file an action or take such steps necessary to have the parcel in question conveyed to her so that she could later convey it to them thru the usual execution of a valid and sufficient instrument of sale. The plaintiffs have brought this case before us on appeal through certiorari.
While we accept the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, we cannot agree to its interpretation of the contract of sale with pacto de retro regarding the stipulation on redemption. In our opinion, considering the circumstances surrounding the case, the phrase ‘‘sa ganito ding halaga" (at the same price), contrary to the interpretation given by the Court of First Instance and by the Court of Appeals, meant the same price of P5,000, in the currency prevailing at the time of redemption and not the equivalent in Philippine currency of P5,000 in Japanese war notes. So, we may not apply here the Ballantine schedule as did the Court of Appeals. The trial court held that the contracts of loan relative to the different sums borrowed by the defendant from plaintiffs since December 1943, and totalling P5,000 in June 1944, were novated and converted into a contract of sale, but, we cannot help but consider the terms of said different loan agreements, as shown by the receipts evidencing the same, to the effect that the loans were to be paid in the currency then prevailing at the time of repayment. As explained by counsel for petitioners, the plaintiffs wanted to have the repurchase price in the same amount as the sales price and in the prevailing currency, but that, through fear of the Japanese, the parties did not dare, express that agreement and intention in detail, specially in view of the warning contained in the proclamation by the Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Forces, dated January 3, 1942, which provided, among other things, that any attempt to interfere with the circulation of the Japanese war notes such as rejection of payment in said currency, would be punished severely.
Our view of the case is that the parties herein gambled and speculated on the date of the termination of the war and the liberation of the Philippines by America. This can be gleaned from the stipulation about redemption, particularly that portion to the effect that redemption could be effected not before the expiration of one year from June 24, 1944. The plaintiffs, to be sure that the redemption price should be paid in Philippine currency after liberation, must have wanted a relatively long period,—say two or more years, before the land could be redeemed the defendant, however, must have wanted as short a period as possible so that she could redeem the land during the Japanese occupation and in the same Japanese currency which was fast depreciating. Both parties took chances and ran quite a serious risk. If by July 1945 the Philippines, particularly Laguna, was still under the Japanese rule and occupation, defendant Miguela could redeem the property with Japanese war notes which, considering the steady and fast depreciation of said notes since 1943, shall have been nigh worthless, though still legal tender. If, however, by July 1945, the Philippines shall have been liberated, then the defendant must redeem the land in Philippine currency and in the same amount of P5,000.
This kind of agreement is permitted by law. We find nothing immoral or unlawful in it. It may be viewed in the same light as insurance contracts, or sales of grain, sugar or other commodities to be delivered at some future date, w hose price is subject to fluctuation, and may, at the time of delivery, be way above or below the sales price.
Recently, this Court decided a similar case on the same principle. (Roño vs. Gomez, G. R. No. L-1927).[1] One who borrowed P4,000 in Japanese military notes on October 5, 1944, to be paid one year after, in currency then prevailing was ordered to pay said sum after October 5, 1945, that is, after liberation, in Philippine currency. It is true that in that case, there was express stipulation that the loan was to be paid in the currency prevailing at the time of repayment, while in the present case, such stipulation is absent. But is clear that such agreement is unnecessary and superflous. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, it is always understood that all payment of an obligation is to be made in legal tender, namely, Philippine silver peso, half peso and gold coins of the United States. (Section 1612, Rev. Adm. Code.) In fact, one may regard the present case as a stronger one in the sense that while in the Roño case, the obligor was compelled to discharge an obligation which because of the difference in currency, proved quite burdensome, though all in accordance to law, here the appellee need not pay back the repurchase price if she does not want to.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the redemption should be made at P5,000 Philippine currency. Should appellee Tabia fail to exercise her right to repurchase within thirty days from the date this decision becomes final, the plaintiffs may take the necessary steps indicated by the Court of Appeals to have the title to the parcel transferred to them. With this modification, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed, with costs.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Bengzon, Tuason, and Reyes, JJ., concur.