[ G. R. No. L-3031. March 15, 1951 ] 88 Phil. 333
[ G. R. No. L-3031. March 15, 1951 ]
AMANDA MADAMBA VDA. DE ADIARTE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EMILIANA TUMANENG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
PADILLA, J.:
Amanda Madamba Vda. de Adiarte was the owner of two parcels of land situated in the barrio of Tabtabagan, municipality of Banna, Ilocos Norte, the first comprising an area of 3,296 square meters and the second, of 6,592 square meters, assessed at P220 and P350, respectively, more particularly described in the second paragraph of the complaint filed in this case. On 25 February 1929, for and in consideration of P1,100, the owner sold the two parcels of land to the spouses Cirilo Agudong and Emiliana Tumaneng, reserving for her the right to repurchase them within ten years. On 29 February 1944, the vendees presented for registration under and pursuant to the provisions of Act 3344 the deed of sale with the right to repurchase in the office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for the Province of Ilocos Norte. On 6 April 1944, the vendor called on the vendees at their residence in the municipality of Sarrat, the same province, offering to repurchase the two parcels of land. At first Cirilo Agudong refused to resell, but later on, at about noon of that day, he called on the vendor, who was taking lunch in the house of Lorenzo Pasion, and told her that he had changed his mind and that he was then decided to resell the parcels of land on condition that he would have them in his possession for the following two years. And to show his good faith he wrote in Ilocano dialect a document which translated into Spanish reads, as follows:
“Yo, Cirilo Agudong, mayor de edad, casado y residente en este barrio No. 15, declaro que hoy 6 de Abril de 1944 vino Dona Amanda Cristobal, duefia del terreno sita en Sineg-guep, Cabaruan, Banna, que yo he comprado con pacto de retro y que ya ha vencido hace afios y que la escritura otorgada ya esta registrada y me signified su deseo de recomprarlo y como quiera que se expreso en terminos precisos y respetuosos reconociendo mi derecho pudo convencerme y me conformo en permitirla a recomprar su terreno pero nos hemos convenido en que yo trabajara aun por dos afios agricolas’ o sean dos afios y pasados los dos afios lo recibire la cantidad con que me vendio y sera cuando se cancelara el registro que se hizo—a mi favor. “En testimonio de lo cual, firmo la presente hoy a 6 de Abril de 1944.
“(Fdo.) CIRILO AGUDONG”
In October 1944, Cirilo Agudong died. On or after 6 April 1946, the vendor offered to repurchase the two parcels of land from one of the vendees, the widow of the late Cirilo Agudong, as promised by the latter during his lifetime in the document quoted above, but the widow of the deceased refused to receive the sum of P1,100 tendered to her by the vendor and to resell the two parcels of land. In view thereof, this action was brought to compel the widow of the late Cirilo Agudong to accept the sum of P1,100 tendered by the plaintiff and to execute in favor of the latter a deed of sale of the two parcels of land. The plaintiff prays also for damages and for costs. In her answer the defendant denies knowledge of any agreement entered into by and between her late husband and the plaintiff, as alleged by the latter in her complaint. At the trial, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts. Upon the evidence and the stipulation of facts, the trial court rendered judgment as prayed for, but without pronouncement as to damages and costs. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The defendant has appealed. After review of the judgment appealed from, the Court of Appeals found that only questions of law are involved in the appeal, and for that reason it certified the appeal to this Court. The errors assigned by the appellant as committed by the trial court are: (1) the pronouncement that the promise to sell (Exhibit A) signed by the late Cirilo Agudong in his lifetime is lawful and valid, and (2) the order to the appellant to accept the sum of P1,100 tendered by the appellee without the three heirs of the deceased Cirilo Agudong having been made party defendants. These same questions were raised in her motion for reconsideration and passed upon by the trial court. There can be no controversy that after the lapse of the ten-year period agreed upon in the deed of sale with the right to repurchase executed by the appellee, as vendor, the appellant and her husband, as vendees, became the absolute owners of the two parcels of land sold to them by the appellee. The promise to sell and convey the two parcels of land made by Cirilo Agudong, after he and his wife had become absolute owners thereof, cannot be regarded as a promise to resell the parcels of land by virtue of the right to repurchase reserved by ’ (the vendor, because that right was lost to the latter after the expiration of ten years agreed upon without making (the repurchase of the two parcels of land. Hence there is no room for the application of the provisions of article 1508 of the Civil Code which prohibit an agreement or stipulation for redemption of the property sold beyond ten years from the date of the contract. The term “re-comprar” (repurchase) was used for lack of better term available or known to Cirilo Agudong, taking into consideration his degree of instruction. It is usual and ordinary to refer to a sale or conveyance of real or personal property, as a resale or repurchase, if the vendee had been the former owner thereof. It is not improper for the former owner to say that he is repurchasing what he had sold and for the purchaser to say that he is reselling Ito the former owner what he had bought the same reasons, the promise to sell, upon which the appellee rests her right to demand the specific performance thereof, cannot be deemed a novation. The latter cannot be brought about without an existing contract which is substituted or replaced by another either by the change of the subject matter, or by substantial alterations of the terms, of the original contract, or iby substitution of another for the debtor, or by subrogation of another to the rights of the creditor. In this case, the original contract of sale with the right to repurchase reserved by the vendor no longer existed at the time the promise to sell was made by the purchaser—who had become the absolute owner after the lapse of the period of time for repurchase— to the seller—who had lost all her right to the property sold, because of her failure to repurchase it within the time agreed upon. The promise to sell made by Cirilo Agudong not only binds him and his estate, now that he is dead, but also his wife, the appellant herein, because in the absence of proof that one-half of the purchase price was parapher-nal, the presumption is that it was conjugal, and the property acquired with conjugal funds must also be conjugal, and the contract made by the husband as regards conjugal property binds the wife. The promise referred to, not being contrary to law, morals, or public order or policy, is lawful, valid and enforceable. The second point raised by the appellant is well taken. But there seems to be no defense which may be pleaded or set up by the children and heirs of the late Cirilo Agudong, who are bound by such acts of their late father as they affect his estate, except the one set up by the appellant, the widow of the deceased and mother of the said children. Therefore, to expedite the disposition of this case without resort to technicalities, the appellee is directed to amend her complaint by impleading the children and heirs of the late Cirilo Agudong, who, if under age, will be represented by the appellant, their mother, as guardian ad litem to be appointed by the trial court. Upon the filing of the amended complaint, the appellee will serve a copy thereof upon the appellant, as guardian ad litem of the new party defendants who are minors, or copies thereof upon the children and heirs of the late Cirilo Agudong, if already of age; and if within 15 days from service of a copy or copies of the amended complaint, no answer be filed, or if an answer be filed by said guardian ad litem or by the children and heirs of the late Cirilo Agudong, if of age, setting up no other defense than the one already set up by their mother, the appellant herein, and passed upon by the trial court and this Court, then the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. If the answer or answers filed by the new party defendants, if of age, or by their guardian ad litem, if under age, set up a new valid defense, then the judgment appealed from is set aside, without costs, and the trial court is directed to hear such evidence as the new party defendants may desire to present, and after hearing to render judgment in the case. Paras, Ferria, Bengzon, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.