Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    PASTOR AMIGO and JUSTINO AMIGO V SERAFIN TEVES PDF

    Uploaded by

    John Yeung
    (1) In 1937, Macario Amigo and Anacleto Cagalitan executed a power of attorney granting their son, Marcelino Amigo, the power to lease, sell, or transfer properties. (2) In 1938, Marcelino, acting as attorney-in-fact, executed a deed of sale with repurchase clause of a parcel of land in favor of Serafin Teves for P3,000. The agreement allowed the vendors to repurchase the land within 18 months and remain as lessees for that period. (3) In 1939, the spouses Amigo donated their right to repurchase the land to their sons Pastor and Justino Amigo. In

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PASTOR AMIGO and JUSTINO AMIGO V SERAFIN TEVES PDF

    Uploaded by

    John Yeung
    67 views2 pages
    (1) In 1937, Macario Amigo and Anacleto Cagalitan executed a power of attorney granting their son, Marcelino Amigo, the power to lease, sell, or transfer properties. (2) In 1938, Marcelino, acting as attorney-in-fact, executed a deed of sale with repurchase clause of a parcel of land in favor of Serafin Teves for P3,000. The agreement allowed the vendors to repurchase the land within 18 months and remain as lessees for that period. (3) In 1939, the spouses Amigo donated their right to repurchase the land to their sons Pastor and Justino Amigo. In

    Original Title

    (15) PASTOR AMIGO and JUSTINO AMIGO v SERAFIN TEVES.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) In 1937, Macario Amigo and Anacleto Cagalitan executed a power of attorney granting their son, Marcelino Amigo, the power to lease, sell, or transfer properties. (2) In 1938, Marcelino, acting as attorney-in-fact, executed a deed of sale with repurchase clause of a parcel of land in favor of Serafin Teves for P3,000. The agreement allowed the vendors to repurchase the land within 18 months and remain as lessees for that period. (3) In 1939, the spouses Amigo donated their right to repurchase the land to their sons Pastor and Justino Amigo. In

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    67 views2 pages

    PASTOR AMIGO and JUSTINO AMIGO V SERAFIN TEVES PDF

    Uploaded by

    John Yeung
    (1) In 1937, Macario Amigo and Anacleto Cagalitan executed a power of attorney granting their son, Marcelino Amigo, the power to lease, sell, or transfer properties. (2) In 1938, Marcelino, acting as attorney-in-fact, executed a deed of sale with repurchase clause of a parcel of land in favor of Serafin Teves for P3,000. The agreement allowed the vendors to repurchase the land within 18 months and remain as lessees for that period. (3) In 1939, the spouses Amigo donated their right to repurchase the land to their sons Pastor and Justino Amigo. In

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    (15) PASTOR AMIGO and JUSTINO AMIGO v SERAFIN TEVES November 29, 1954

    Traditio Constitutum Possessorium A1500


    BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.
    FACTS
    Aug 11, 1937, Macario Amigo and Anacleto Cagalitan executed in favor of their
    son, Marcelino Amigo, a power of attorney granting to the latter, among others,
    the power "to lease, let, bargain, transfer, convey and sell, remise, release,
    mortgage and hypothecate, part or any of the properties . . . upon such terms
    and conditions, and under such covenants as he shall think fit."

    from Serafin Teves by tendering to him the payment of the redemption price
    but the latter refused on the ground that the ownership had already been
    consolidated in him as purchaser a retro.

    April 26, 1940, before the expiration of the 18th-month period stipulated for the
    redemption of the land, the donees instituted the present action.
    (1) The lease covenant contained in the DoS with pacto de retro executed by
    Marcelino Amigo as attorney-in-fact in favor of Serafin Teves is not germane to,
    nor within the purview of, the powers granted to said attorney-in-fact and,
    therefore, is ultra vires and null and void;
    Oct 30, 1938, Marcelino Amigo, in his capacity as attorney-in-fact, executed a
    (2) the penal clause stipulated in the lease covenant referring to the automatic
    DoS of a parcel of land for a price of P3k in favor of Serafin Teves.
    termination of the period of redemption is null and void; and
    Terms:
    (3) Ps should be allowed to repurchase the land on equitable grounds
    - vendors could repurchase the land within a period of 18 months from the date considering the great disproportion between the redemption price and the
    of the sale.
    market value of the land on the date the period of redemption is supposed to
    - vendors would remain in possession of the land as lessees for a period of 18
    expire.
    months subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) the lessees shall pay
    P180 as rent every six months from the date of the agreement; (b) the period of CFI dismissed the case (I think, no info in the case)
    the lease shall terminate on April 30, 1940; (c) in case of litigation, the lessees
    shall pay P100 as attorney's fees; and (d) in case of failure to pay any rental as CA modify it in the sense that Ps, should not be made to pay the sum of P100 as
    agreed upon, the lease shall automatically terminate and the right of ownership attorney's fees.
    of vendee shall become absolute.
    - power granted to Marcelino Amigo was broad enough to justify the execution
    of any contract concerning the lands covered by the authority even if this be a
    July 20, 1939, the Sps Amigo donated to their sons Justino Amigo and Pastor
    contract of lease. Even in the supposition that the power to take the land under
    Amigo several parcels of land including their right to repurchase the land in
    lease is not included within the authority granted, Ps cannot now impugn the
    litigation. The deed of donation was made in a public instrument, was duly
    validity of the lease covenant because such right devolves upon the principals,
    accepted by the donees, and was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds. who are the only one who can claim that their agent has exceeded the authority
    granted to him, and because said principals had tacitly ratified the act done by
    The vendors-lessees paid the rental corresponding to the first six months, but said agent.
    not the rental for the subsequent semester.
    Hence this petition for review.
    Jan 8, 1940, Serafin Teves, executed an "Affidavit of Consolidation of Title" in
    WON the lease covenant contained in the DoS with pacto de retro is ultra
    view of the failure of the lessees to pay the rentals as agreed upon, and
    vires and null and void.
    registered said affidavit in the Office of the RoD of Negros Oriental, who, on
    Held: No
    January 28, 1940, issued to Serafin Teves the corresponding TCT over the land. The lease that a vendor executes on the property may be considered as a means
    of delivery or tradition by constitutum possessorium. Where the vendor a retro
    March 9, 1940, Justino Amigo and Pastor Amigo offered to repurchase the land continues to occupy the land as lessee, by fiction of law, the possession is

    deemed to be constituted in the vendee by virtue of this mode of tradition.


    Therefore this covenant regarding the lease of the land sold is germane to the
    contract of sale with pacto de retro.

    While this contention may have some basis when considered with reference to
    an absolute contract of sale, it loses weight when applied to a contract of sale
    with pacto de retro, where the price is usually less than in absolute sale for the
    reason that in a sale with pacto de retro, the vendor expects to re-acquire or
    WON the penal clause stipulated in the lease covenant referring to the
    redeem the property sold. Another flaw we find is that all the evidence
    automatic termination of the period of redemption is null and void.
    presented refers to sales which were executed in 1940 and 1941 and none was
    Held: No
    presented pertaining to 1938, or its neighborhood, when the contract in
    While the lease covenant may be onerous or may work hardship on the vendor question was entered into. And the main reason we find for not entertaining this
    because of its clause providing for the automatic termination of the period of
    claim is that it involves a question of fact and as the Court of Appeals has found
    redemption, however, the same is not contrary to law, morals, or public order, that the price paid for the land is not unreasonable as to justify the nullification
    which may serve as basis for its nullification. Rather than obnoxious are
    of the sale, such finding, in appeal by certiorari, is final and conclusive upon this
    oppressive , it is a clause common in a sale with pacto de retro, and as such it
    Court.
    received the sanction of our courts.
    Finding no error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed,
    We have not failed to take notice of the Court's warning that "admitting the
    without pronouncement as to costs.
    validity of such a provision, it is not to be expected that any court will be
    reluctant to relieve from its effects wherever this can be done consistently with
    established principles of law." We only wish that in this case, a way may be
    found consistent with law whereby we would relieve the Ps from the effects of
    the penal clause under consideration, but, to our regret, none we have found, for
    R has been alert and quick enough to assert his right by consolidating his
    ownership when the first chance to do so has presented itself. He has shown no
    vacillation, nor offered any compromise which may deem as a waiver or a
    justification for forfeiting the privilege given him under the penal clause. The
    only alternative left is to enforce it as stipulated in the agreement.
    WON Ps should be allowed to repurchase the land on equitable grounds
    Held: No
    Ps also contend that as the assessed value of the land in 1938, when the contract
    was celebrated, was P4,280, the selling price of P3,000 agreed upon is considered
    as not written, and Ps should be allowed to exercise the right to repurchase on
    equitable considerations. And in support of this contention, counsel presented
    evidence to show that the market price of the land in 1940, the year the period
    of redemption was supposed to expire was 14 times more than the money paid
    for it by R such that, if that should be taken as basis, the value of the land would
    be P43,004.50.

    You might also like