Lagmay v. Quinit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 12, 1929, Patricio Basto sold a portion of land to spouses Emerenciana Quinit and Teodoro Gundran for P280, redeemable within ten years. The redemption period expired without Basto repurchasing the property. Procedural History: In July 1948, plaintiffs Florida Lagmay and Esteban Madruno filed a complaint against Emerenciana Quinit, claiming they bought the same land from Quinit in 1943 for P450, as evidenced by a writing on the back of the original deed of sale. They prayed for a formal deed of sale and delivery of possession. The trial court found that the writing at the back of the deed was a subrogation of Basto's rights in favor of the plaintiffs. It also found that a prior case (Civil Case No. 9859) was filed by Floserfida Basto against Quinit, claiming ownership as successor of Patricio Basto, alleging repurchase by Lagmay and Madruno. This case was settled amicably, with Basto receiving P350 and Lagmay and Madruno receiving P450, in consideration for which both waived their rights under the writing at the back of the deed in favor of Quinit. The trial court rendered judgment holding that the plaintiffs had no more rights to the property and dismissed their complaint. The Petition: Plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as sole error the trial court's interpretation of the Ilocano writing as a subrogation instead of an absolute sale.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in interpreting the writing in the Ilocano dialect at the back of Exhibit "A" as a subrogation of the interest of Patricio Basto in the deed of sale con pacto de retro instead of an absolute sale of the land in question by defendant-appellee Quinit to the plaintiffs-appellants. Whether the untranslated writing in the Ilocano dialect is admissible in evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the plaintiffs have no more right to the property in question and dismissing their complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the untranslated writing: The Court held that the writing in question, being in the Ilocano dialect, was not admissible in evidence because no official translation was presented, despite an objection on the ground that it was not in an official language and was admitted conditionally subject to such presentation. Section 57 of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court mandates that documents must be in an official language or accompanied by a translation to be admissible. On the interpretation of the writing and the mootness of the issue: By limiting their appeal to the legal question of interpretation, the appellants were deemed to have admitted the trial court's findings that their rights under the writing had been bought back by appellee Quinit for P450 during the settlement of the former case (Civil Case No. 9859). Consequently, they had no more rights to the land. In view of this admission, the question of the true nature and import of the contract noted in Exhibit "A" became moot and academic. The Court found no merit in the appeal based on these two grounds.
Main Doctrine
An untranslated document in a foreign dialect, objected to on that ground and admitted conditionally subject to the presentation of an official translation which was never made, is inadmissible in evidence. Furthermore, where parties admit findings of fact that their rights have been bought back, the issue of the nature of the original contract becomes moot and academic.