G.R. No. 27890, December 31, 1927
PONCIANO MEDEL, petitioner-appellant, vs. CARLOS N. FRANCISCO, opponent-appellee.

Ponente: AVANCENA, J.

FACTS

On May 16, 1917, Carlos N. Francisco sold a parcel of land to Telesforo Calasan with a right of repurchase, which was annotated on the certificate of title. The annotation stated that the sale was made on the condition that Francisco “reserves the right to repurchase, at the cost price of this sale, a fourth part of the land… when the same is established.” On December 4, 1926, Telesforo Calasan sold the land to Ponciano Medel. Subsequently, on January 17, 1927, Medel filed an action to compel the Register of Deeds to cancel the annotation of the right of repurchase, arguing that the period to exercise the right had already expired. Medel contended the period was four (4) years, while Francisco argued it was ten (10) years. The trial court ruled in favor of Francisco, holding that the period was ten years and had not yet expired.

ISSUE

Whether the period within which Carlos N. Francisco may exercise his right to repurchase the land is four (4) years or ten (10) years.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the trial court. The period for the exercise of the right of repurchase is four (4) years.

The Court held that the contractual clause did not stipulate a specific period for the exercise of the right of repurchase. Instead, it merely suspended the right until the establishment of an earthen jar factory. This suspension was a condition precedent, not a period. Under Article 1508 of the Civil Code, in the absence of an express agreement, the right of repurchase lasts only four years. Even if the parties stipulate a period, it cannot exceed ten years.

Since the contract did not fix a specific term, the legal period of four years applied. This four-year period commenced from the date of the original contract (May 16, 1917) and had already expired when the action was filed in 1927. Furthermore, the Court ruled that any stipulation suspending the exercise of the right beyond the four-year legal period is null and void. Consequently, the right of repurchase had expired, and the Register of Deeds was ordered to cancel its annotation on the certificate of title.