PARTIES:
Plaintiff-Appellee: Angela Joaquin y Patricio (represented by her guardian, and as heir of the deceased Eleuterio Joaquin).
Defendant-Appellant: Inocencio Aragon.
FACTS:
1. On September 20, 1884, Inocencio Aragon and his wife sold a house and lot in Malate to Eleuterio Joaquin under a pacto de retro (sale with right of repurchase) for 600 pesos. The repurchase period was two years, extendible at the purchaser’s will. The vendors remained as tenants at an annual rent of 60 pesos.
2. The two-year period expired without the vendors repurchasing the property.
3. On November 16, 1893, Aragon filed an action to compel the heirs of the deceased Eleuterio Joaquin to allow him to repurchase the property. The court dismissed his complaint on April 28, 1894, ruling that he had lost his right to repurchase for failing to repay the price within the stipulated period, and that the purchaser’s title had become irrevocable. Aragon’s appeal from this judgment was dismissed.
4. Despite the final judgment, Aragon remained in possession without paying rent and refused to vacate.
5. On September 10, 1896, the guardian of Angela Joaquin (Eleuterio’s heir) filed an action for illegal detainer (ejectment) against Aragon to recover possession.
6. The Court of First Instance rendered judgment on October 21, 1902, declaring Aragon’s possession wrongful and ordering him to vacate and pay costs.
7. Aragon’s counsel filed a bill of exceptions and assignment of errors well beyond the reglementary period. Meanwhile, execution of the judgment proceeded, and possession was delivered to the plaintiff.
ISSUE:
1. Whether an action for ejectment (illegal detainer) properly lies against the defendant-vendor after the finality of a judgment declaring that his right to repurchase under the pacto de retro had been irrevocably lost.
2. Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the ejectment case.
3. Whether the appeal was perfected on time.
RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the lower court.
1. On the Merits (Ejectment): The action for ejectment was proper. Under Articles 1509 and 1518 of the Civil Code, the vendor’s failure to repay the purchase price within the stipulated time causes the purchaser’s title to become irrevocable. The 1894 judgment had already conclusively established that Aragon lost his right to repurchase and that ownership was irrevocably vested in the heirs of Eleuterio Joaquin. By continuing to occupy the property without right and without paying rent after demand to vacate, Aragon was a possessor in bad faith. The plaintiff, as the adjudged owner, had the right to bring an action for ejectment under the applicable procedural codes to recover possession.
2. On Jurisdiction: The Court of First Instance had jurisdiction. The parties stipulated that the case be tried under the new Code of Civil Procedure. However, the complaint was filed under the old procedure, which granted the Court of First Instance jurisdiction over ejectment cases. The transition to the new procedure was in accordance with Section 795 of the new Code. Furthermore, the action, while labeled ejectment, ultimately involved the issue of ownership arising from the violation of a contractual stipulation, over which the Court of First Instance had original jurisdiction under Act No. 136.
3. On Procedure and Timeliness of Appeal: The appeal was not perfected on time. The defendant (or his alleged heirs) filed the bill of exceptions and assignment of errors 40 days after judgment, far exceeding the 10-day period mandated by Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No valid excuse for the delay was shown. The trial court therefore correctly ordered the execution of the judgment. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court, having received the record and in view of prior orders, decided to resolve the case on its merits.
DOCTRINE:
Upon the vendor’s failure to repurchase the property within the stipulated period in a pacto de retro sale, the purchaser’s title becomes irrevocable under Article 1509 of the Civil Code.
A vendor who loses the right to redeem and continues to occupy the property becomes a possessor in bad faith. The purchaser (or heirs), as the irrevocable owner, has the right to bring an action for ejectment to recover possession.
* A final judgment declaring the extinction of the right to repurchase is conclusive on the issue of ownership and bars the vendor from contesting it in a subsequent possessory action.
