Fernandez v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Patricio Fernandez executed a sale con pacto de retro in favor of Catalino Fernandez over a fishpond land for P160, redeemable within four years. Patricio Fernandez never redeemed the land. Procedural History: Catalino Fernandez filed an application for registration. The heirs of Patricio Fernandez opposed, filing a case claiming the contract was an equitable mortgage. The trial court ruled it was an equitable mortgage. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding it a true sale with right to repurchase and declaring Catalino Fernandez the absolute owner. This judgment became final on September 25, 1958. The Petition: The heirs of Patricio Fernandez filed a new complaint alleging the right to repurchase under Article 1606 of the New Civil Code, claiming they offered to redeem the land since September 26, 1953, but were refused. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the action was barred by the prior judgment and that ownership had vested before the New Civil Code took effect. The lower court dismissed the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the heirs of Patricio Fernandez have the right to repurchase the land under Article 1606 of the New Civil Code. Whether the action is barred by prior judgment or prescription.
Ruling
The appeal is without merit. The lower court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the right to repurchase under Article 1606 of the New Civil Code: The Court held that Article 1606 of the New Civil Code, which provides that a vendor may still exercise the right to repurchase within thirty days from the time a final judgment is rendered on the basis that the contract was a true sale with right to repurchase, cannot be applied if the right to repurchase had already expired before the effectivity of the New Civil Code. This is because applying the said article would constitute an impairment of a right that had already become vested in the vendee under the provisions of the old Code. In this case, full ownership over the land had become consolidated and vested in the defendant-appellee since 1936, long before the New Civil Code took effect. Therefore, his right thereto could no longer be impaired by allowing the plaintiffs to sue for the exercise of the right of redemption given by Article 1606 of the New Code. The Court also noted that the Court of Appeals did not reserve any right of redemption under Article 1606 in its final judgment, further supporting the conclusion that such right was not available. On whether the action is barred by prior judgment or prescription: The Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal based on the prior judgment of the Court of Appeals, which had already declared the defendant-appellee as the absolute owner of the land. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if there were any rights to question the nature of the original transaction or to recover the land, such rights would have been extinguished by prescription ten years after the defendant consolidated his ownership in 1936. Thus, the action filed by the plaintiffs was indeed barred by both prior judgment and prescription.
Main Doctrine
The right to repurchase under the last paragraph of Article 1606 of the New Civil Code cannot be applied if the right to repurchase had already expired before the effectivity of the New Civil Code, as this would impair a vested right of the vendee.