GR 1096; (May, 1903) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1096 , May 5, 1903
MARTIN BALATBAT, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VALENTIN TANJUTCO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The plaintiff, Martin Balatbat, filed a complaint alleging that he and his co-owners sold a parcel of land to the defendant, Valentin Tanjutco, in 1898 or 1899 with an agreement that they could redeem it. He sought to redeem the land by paying 400 pesos. The defendant denied all allegations. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the facts as expressly found by the trial judge in the written decision, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. The only facts found were: (1) the defendant paid a co-owner, Doña Inocencia Soco, 10 pesos; (2) the land was previously owned by Doña Simona Espinosa, who sold it with a right of repurchase to Prudencio Tanjutco (the defendant’s brother), and was later redeemed by the plaintiff and his co-owners, who possessed it for four years; and (3) the defendant refused to produce a written document when called upon to do so.
ISSUE:
Whether the facts found by the trial court in its decision are sufficient, as a matter of law, to support the judgment allowing the plaintiff to redeem the land.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and ordered a new trial. The Court held that the facts found by the trial judge did not legally support the judgment. Specifically: (1) the payment of 10 pesos to a co-owner did not prove that the redemption price was 400 pesos; (2) the prior history of the land involving a sale and redemption from the defendant’s brother did not prove a subsequent sale with a right of repurchase to the defendant himself; and (3) the defendant’s refusal to produce a document could not substitute for a factual finding that such a contract existed or establish its terms. The Court also addressed, without deciding, a subsidiary claim of res judicata by the defendant, noting it could not be supported due to a lack of established identity of the subject matter between the prior and present cases. Costs were assessed against the appellee.