G.R. No. L-40242, 15 December 1982
FACTS:
On April 7, 19311, Margarita, Bernardo and petitioner Dommga, all surnamed Conde, (the vendors-a-retro) sold with right of repurchase within ten years from said date, an unregistered parcel of agricultural land, to the spouses Casimira Pasagui and Pio Altera (the vendees-a-retro).
Three years later, Original Certificate of Title No. N-534 covering the land was issued in the name of the vendees-a-retro subject to the stipulated right of redemption of the vendors-a-retro. Within the repurchase period, particularly on November 28, 1943, Paciente Cordero, son-in-law of and representing the vendees-a-retro signed a Memorandum of Repurchase declaring therein that he received from Eusebio Amarille, a representative of the vendors-a-retro, the full amount of the repurchase price.
Petitioner Dominga, claiming that she redeemed the property with her own money, immediately took possession of the land in 1945 and paid the land taxes thereon since then. On June 30, 1965, however, the vendees-a-retro sold the land to the private respondent spouses, the Condes. Consequently, in 1969, petitioner filed with the Court of First Instance a complaint for quieting of title and declaration of ownership against all the private respondents.
The Trial Court dismissed the Complaint and ordered petitioner to vacate the disputed property and to deliver its peaceful possession to the Conde spouses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision and held that petitioner failed to validly exercise her tight of repurchase because the Memorandum of Repurchase was not signed by the vendees-a-retro but by Cordero who was not formally authorized to sign for said vendees-a-retro.
ISSUE:
Whether there was an implied agency when Cordero signed the Memorandum of Repurchase.
RULING:
Yes. Of significance, however, is the fact that from the execution of the repurchase document in 1945, possession, which heretofore had been with the Alteras, has been in the hands of petitioner as stipulated therein. Land taxes have also been paid for by petitioner yearly from 1947 to 1969 inclusive.
If, as opined by both the Court a quo and the Appellate Court, petitioner had done nothing to formalize her repurchase, by the same token, neither have the vendees-a-retro done anything to clear their title of the encumbrance therein regarding petitioner’s right to repurchase.
No new agreement was entered into by the parties as stipulated in the deed of pacto de retro, if the vendors a retro failed to exercise their right of redemption after ten years. If, as alleged, petitioner exerted no effort to procure the signature of Pio Altera after he had recovered from his illness, neither did the Alteras repudiate the deed that their son-in-law had signed. Thus, an implied agency must be held to have been created from their silence or lack of action, or their failure to repudiate the agency. (Art. 1869, Civil Code.) Wherefore, a new Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in the name of petition Dominga Conde.
*Case digest by Nikki P. Ebillo, JD-4, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2019-2020