Gallar v. Husain
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Elias Gallar (appellee) filed a suit against Hermenegilda and Bonifacio Husain (heirs of Teodoro Husain) to compel them to execute a deed of conveyance for a hectare of rice land. The land was originally owned by Teodoro Husain, who sold it on January 9, 1919, to Serapio Chichirita for P30.00 with a right to repurchase within six years. The deed of sale was a private instrument. Teodoro Husain did not redeem the land. On January 28, 1919, Chichirita transferred his rights to Graciana Husain, Teodoro's sister, in what was annotated as a "redemption" (gawad) on the deed. Graciana Husain subsequently transferred her rights to Elias Gallar in exchange for a cow on April 2, 1919. Gallar took possession of the land and the owner's duplicate certificate of title, and has been in possession since. Chichirita and Graciana Husain executed affidavits in 1928 confirming these transactions. Procedural History: Gallar petitioned the Cadastral Court for a transfer certificate of title, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. He then filed the instant suit in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on October 10, 1960, seeking a deed of conveyance and damages. The defendants (heirs of Teodoro Husain) denied the sale, claiming it was a mortgage, and that it was discharged. They also invoked prescription and sought damages for lost harvests. The trial court found the sale to Graciana and then to Gallar to be valid and ordered the defendants to execute a deed of conveyance, citing Sapto v. Fabiana. The Petition: Bonifacio Husain appealed the trial court's decision, contending that the land in question was not the same land sold by Teodoro Husain. He argued that the trial court overlooked this issue. The Supreme Court noted that the records did not show any allegation or evidence presented by the appellant regarding the identity of the land, other than a brief objection during appellee's testimony.
Issue(s)
Whether the land sold by Teodoro Husain to Serapio Chichirita on January 9, 1919, is the same land subject of the present controversy. Whether the transaction between Teodoro Husain and Serapio Chichirita was a sale with a right to repurchase or a mortgage. Whether Graciana Husain's payment to Serapio Chichirita constituted a valid redemption of the land on behalf of Teodoro Husain. Whether Elias Gallar validly acquired ownership of the land. Whether the action to quiet title has prescribed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, ordering the appellants to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of the appellee. The Court held that the sale with a right to repurchase was valid, Graciana Husain acquired the land in her own right, Elias Gallar validly acquired ownership, and the action to quiet title by a party in possession is imprescriptible.
Ratio Decidendi
On the identity of the land: The Court found no evidence on record to support appellant Bonifacio Husain's claim that the land sold in the deed of pacto de retro was different from Lot No. 766. The appellant's defense primarily focused on the nature of the transaction as a mortgage and prescription, implicitly admitting the identity of the land. The Court noted that raising this issue for the first time on appeal would constitute a change of theory, which is unfair to the adverse party. The objection made during the trial regarding the mention of Lot 766 in Exhibit C was deemed insufficient to establish a claim of different land identity. On the nature of the transaction and redemption: The Court held that the transaction was a sale with a right to repurchase, not a mortgage, as evidenced by the deed and the subsequent actions of the parties. While the annotation on the deed referred to Graciana Husain's payment as "redemption" (gawad), there was no evidence that she was acting on behalf of her brother, Teodoro Husain, in exercising his right of redemption. The right of repurchase is personal to the vendor or his transferee. Therefore, Graciana Husain must be deemed to have acquired the land in her own right, becoming the new owner subject only to Teodoro Husain's right of redemption. On the validity of Graciana Husain's acquisition and subsequent sale to appellee: As Graciana Husain acquired the land in her own right, she had the perfect right to dispose of it. She validly transferred her rights to Elias Gallar in exchange for a cow. The Court emphasized that although the successive sales were in private instruments, they were valid. The consummation of the sale and transfer of title to appellee occurred upon the delivery of possession of the land on April 2, 1919. On prescription: The Court ruled that the action to quiet title, filed by appellee Elias Gallar who was in possession of the land, is imprescriptible. The Court distinguished this from an action for recovery of real property, which would be subject to a statute of limitations if the defendants were in possession. Since Gallar was in possession, his action to remove the cloud on his ownership caused by the appellants' refusal to recognize the sale was not barred by prescription. On the nature of the action: The Court clarified that the present suit was not for specific performance but an action to quiet title. The purpose was to remove the cloud cast on appellee's ownership due to the appellants' refusal to recognize the sale made by their predecessor. As the appellee was in possession, the action to quiet title is considered imprescriptible.
Main Doctrine
A sale with a right to repurchase, even if contained in a private instrument, is valid. Possession delivered pursuant to such sale consummates the sale and transfers title. An action to quiet title by a party in possession is imprescriptible.