Jacinto v. Fajardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Nicanor Jacinto filed an action of reivindicacion against defendants Juana Fajardo and Felix Gregorio for three parcels of land, alleging ownership and that defendants were his tenants owing P6,350 in back rentals. The defendants claimed the deed of sale with pacto de retro executed in favor of the plaintiff was fictitious, a disguise for a usurious loan, and that the transfer of title was obtained without their consent. They also filed a counterclaim, asserting they had repurchased the lands from the plaintiff, who then allegedly sold them to Purificacion Soriano in violation of their contract. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The Petition: The defendants appealed the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the deed of April 5, 1922, is a sale with pacto de retro or a disguised mortgage. Whether the plaintiff made the conveyance to Purificacion Soriano in fraud of the defendants.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, ruling that the deed of April 5, 1922, is a valid sale with pacto de retro and that the conveyance to Purificacion Soriano was made with the knowledge and consent of the defendants. The counterclaim was found to be without foundation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the deed of April 5, 1922, is a sale with pacto de retro or a disguised usurious mortgage: The Court found the preponderance of evidence to be unquestionably in favor of the plaintiff. The deed of April 5, 1922, Exhibit 1, was an unambiguous sale with pacto de retro. The defendants failed to prove any circumstances that would warrant the impeachment of this document. The Court cited Tolentino and Manio vs. Gonzalez Sy Chiam as persuasive authority on the principle that an unambiguous document should be given its face value in the absence of contrary proof. The defendants' sole reliance on the testimony of Felix Gregorio against the plaintiff's six witnesses was insufficient to overcome the presumption of validity of the deed. On the issue of whether the plaintiff made the conveyance to Purificacion Soriano in fraud of the defendants: The Court found overwhelming oral and written evidence that the transfer to Purificacion Soriano was made with the knowledge and consent of both defendants. Juana Fajardo herself signed the deed as a witness, and the repurchase price of P39,100 was Purificacion Soriano's money. Furthermore, Felix Gregorio assisted Purificacion in obtaining a Torrens title and testified in her behalf. The Court noted that this matter had already been decided by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 31019, where it was held that Purificacion Soriano is the absolute owner of the lands. The defendants' counterclaim, which was based on the premise that this transfer was fraudulent, was therefore utterly without foundation, and Felix Gregorio's oath that the allegations were true was false.
Main Doctrine
A deed of sale with pacto de retro, unambiguous on its face and supported by evidence, will not be impeached by circumstances that do not warrant such action. A counterclaim based on allegations proven false by prior judicial pronouncements is without foundation.