G.R. No. 162788 - SPOUSES JULITA DE LA CRUZ AND FELIPE DE LA CRUZ, VS. PEDRO JOAQUIN.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the appeal is DISMISSED and the assailed decision accordingly AFFIRMED in toto. No costs." [4] On the other hand, the trial court's affirmed Decision disposed as follows: "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: "a) declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exh. "D") and "Kasunduan" (Exhibit B), to be a sale with right of repurchase; "b) ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendants the sum of P9,000.00 by way of repurchasing the land in question; "c) ordering the defendants to execute a deed of reconveyance of said land in favor of the plaintiff after the latter has paid them the amount of P9,000.00 to repurchase the land in question; "d) ordering the defendants to yield possession of the subject land to the plaintiff after the latter has paid them the amount of P9,000.00 to repurchase the property from them; and "e) ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages; the amount of P5,000[.00] as exemplary damages; the amount of P5,000.00 as expenses of litigation and the amount of P5,000.00 by way of attorney's fees." [5] The Facts The case originated from a Complaint for the recovery of possession and ownership, the cancellation of title, and damages, filed by Pedro Joaquin against petitioners in the Regional Trial Court of Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. [6] Respondent alleged that he had obtained a loan from them in the amount of P9,000 on June 29, 1974, payable after five (5) years; that is, on June 29, 1979. To secure the payment of the obligation, he supposedly executed a Deed of Sale in favor of petitioners. The Deed was for a parcel of land in Pinagpanaan, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, covered by TCT No. T-111802. The parties also executed another document entitled " Kasunduan. " [7] Respondent claimed that the Kasunduan showed the Deed of Sale to be actually an equitable mortgage. [8] Spouses De la Cruz contended that this document was merely an accommodation to allow the repurchase of the property until June 29, 1979, a right that he failed to exercise. [9] On April 23, 1990, the RTC issued a Decision in his favor. The trial court declared that the parties had entered into a sale with a right of repurchase. [10] It further held that respondent had made a valid tender of payment on two separate occasions to exercise his right of repurchase. [11] Accordingly, petitioners were required to reconvey the property upon his payment. [12] Ruling of the Court of Appeals Sustaining the trial court, the CA noted that petitioners had given respondent the right to repurchase the property within five (5) years from the date of the sale or until June 29, 1979. Accordingly, the parties executed the Kasunduan to express the terms and conditions of their actual agreement. [13] The appellate court also found no reason to overturn the finding that respondent had validly exercised his right to repurchase the land. [14] In the March 9, 2004 Resolution, the CA denied reconsiderat