Scribd
Upload
70 views1 page

9.DOMINGA CONDE Vs CA

Dominga Conde and her siblings sold land to Casimira Pasagui and Pio Altera in 1938, with the right to repurchase the land within 10 years. In 1945, Paciente Cordero, the son-in-law of the Alteras, signed a document stating that the Condes had inherited the right to repurchase and authorizing someone else to do so. The Alteras did not sign this document. In 1965, Pio Altera sold the land to Ramon and Catalina Conde. Dominga then filed a case to establish her ownership. The Court ruled that an implied agency existed when Cordero signed the document since the Alteras did not repudiate it

Uploaded by

Rein
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
70 views1 page

9.DOMINGA CONDE Vs CA

Dominga Conde and her siblings sold land to Casimira Pasagui and Pio Altera in 1938, with the right to repurchase the land within 10 years. In 1945, Paciente Cordero, the son-in-law of the Alteras, signed a document stating that the Condes had inherited the right to repurchase and authorizing someone else to do so. The Alteras did not sign this document. In 1965, Pio Altera sold the land to Ramon and Catalina Conde. Dominga then filed a case to establish her ownership. The Court ruled that an implied agency existed when Cordero signed the document since the Alteras did not repudiate it

Uploaded by

Rein
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

DOMINGA CONDE vs.

CA
FACTS:
            On 7 April 1938, Margarita Conde, Bernardo Conde and Dominga Conde, as heirs of
Santiago Conde, sold with right to repurchase, within 10 years from said date, a 1 hectare parcel
of agricultural land situated in Burauen, Leyte to Casimira Pasagui and Pio Altera for P165.
Three years later, Original Certificate of Title No. N-534 covering the land in question was
issued in the name of the Alteras subject to the stipulated right of repurchase by the Condes. On
28 November 1945, Paciente Cordero, son-in-law of the Alteras and their representative, signed
a document in Bisaya stating that the Memorandum of Repurchase got lost during World War II
despite all diligent searches being made; that the two parcels of land were inherited by the
Condes; that Eusebio Amarille was authorized by the Condes to repurchase the land; that they
received P165 in consideration of the sale; and that the Condes, by virtue of the repurchase, shall
repossess the said parcels of land. Neither the vendees-a-retro, Pio Altera nor Casimira Pasagui,
were signatories to that document. Many years later, the pacto de retro document was found. In
June 1965, Pio Altera sold the disputed lot to Ramon and Catalina Conde, whose relationship to
Dominga does not appear on record. Consequently, in 1969, Dominga filed with the CFI of
Leyte a complaint for quieting of title and declaration of ownership against all the respondents.
The trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered Dominga to vacate the premises and to
deliver the disputed land to respondents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision and ruled
that Dominga failed to validly exercise her right to repurchase because the Memorandum of
Repurchase was not signed by the Alteras but by Paciente, who was not authorized to sign for the
said vendees-a-retro.

ISSUE:
            Whether or not there was an implied agency when Cordero signed the Memorandum of
Repurchase.

HELD:

            Yes. Although the contending parties were legally wanting in their respective actuations,
for example Dominga did nothing to formalize her repurchase while the Alteras did nothing to
clear their title of the encumbrance therein regarding Dominga’s right to repurchase, the
repurchase by Dominga is supported by her admission that she had been in possession since
1945, the date of the repurchase, and has been paying land taxes thereon since then. No new
agreement was entered into by the parties as stipulated in the deed of pacto de retro, if the
vendors-a-retro failed to exercise their right of redemption within 10 years. If, as alleged,
Dominga did not exert an effort to procure Pio Altera’s signature after he had recovered from
illness, neither did the Alteras repudiate the deed signed by their son-in-law for 24 years, from
which the Alteras are deemed to have incurred in laches. Thus, an implied agency must have
been held to have been created by their silence or lack of action, or their failure to repudiate the
agency created. (Art. 1869, New Civil Code). Wherefore, Dominga is declared the owner of the
land in question.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy