Masongsong v. Kalaw
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Tomasa Masongsong instituted an action to declare a deed of sale with right of redemption, executed in favor of defendant Primitivo Kalaw, as a mortgage deed, praying for the cancellation of the transfer certificate of title issued to the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the deed failed to express the real intention of the parties. Procedural History: The defendant, in his answer, asserted that the contract was a genuine sale, that the plaintiff received the sale price of P20,000, and that the redemption period had elapsed without the plaintiff exercising her right, leading to the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in his favor. The defendant also filed a cross-complaint for damages due to the plaintiff's refusal to deliver possession of the property. The court, by agreement, ordered the plaintiff to post a bond of P8,000 for the non-issuance of a writ of possession, which the plaintiff failed to do, resulting in the issuance of the writ and delivery of possession to the defendant. The defendant later added a special defense of res judicata. A commissioner was appointed to count the coconut trees on the land. The Court of First Instance of Batangas rendered judgment absolving the defendant from the complaint. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed the judgment, assigning errors related to the trial court's finding that the document was a sale with right of redemption and not a mortgage, the plaintiff's understanding of the document, the weight given to the defendant's witnesses' testimony, and the final judgment in favor of the defendant.
Issue(s)
Whether the document executed by the plaintiff in favor of the defendant constituted a sale with right of redemption or a mortgage deed. Whether the plaintiff signed and executed the document with the understanding that it was to be considered a mere mortgage deed. Whether the trial court erred in giving greater weight to the defendant's evidence over the plaintiff's evidence. Whether the trial court erred in rendering judgment in favor of the defendant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, ruling that the document in question was a sale with right of redemption and not a mortgage deed, and that the defendant's title was absolute and irrevocable.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the contract (sale with right of redemption vs. mortgage deed): The Supreme Court held that the facts cited by the plaintiff to support her claim that the contract was a mortgage could not be considered sufficiently proved. On the contrary, the record showed facts established by a preponderance of evidence that corroborated the literal text of the deed of sale, Exhibit E. These facts must prevail unless destroyed by evidence of sufficient weight and force, as the facts stated in a document are presumed to be true. The Court cited Asido vs. Guzman and Mendezona vs. Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co. and De Garay in support of this presumption. The Court also considered the report of the commissioner regarding the coconut trees on the land and agreed with the lower court that the sale price was not inadequate under the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the trial court did not err in holding that the document constituted a sale with right of redemption and not a mere mortgage deed. On the plaintiff's understanding of the document: The Court found that the plaintiff's alleged understanding that the document was a mere mortgage deed was not sufficiently proven. The evidence presented by the plaintiff was not strong enough to overcome the presumption of truthfulness of the facts stated in the deed of sale itself. The corroborating evidence, along with the deed, supported the conclusion that it was a genuine sale with a right to repurchase. On the weight of evidence: The Supreme Court found no reason to depart from the trial court's assessment of the evidence. The trial court gave greater weight and credit to the testimony of the defendant's witnesses, which was supported by other evidence, including the deed of sale itself. The plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to destroy the presumption of truthfulness of the facts stated in the document. On the final judgment: Based on the foregoing, the Supreme Court found no error in the trial court's judgment absolving the defendant from the complaint and declaring the sale absolute and irrevocable. The plaintiff's appeal was denied, and the judgment was affirmed in its entirety.
Main Doctrine
A deed of sale with right of redemption, if corroborated by evidence and not overcome by sufficient proof to the contrary, shall prevail over claims that it was intended as a mortgage deed, especially when the sale price is not found to be inadequate under the circumstances.