G.R. No. 3240
PABLO TRINIDAD, administrator of the estate of MARIA SALOME VIRGENES, plaintiff‑appellant
vs.
LUCAS RICAFORT, et al., defendants‑appellees

FACTS
– 21 July 1886 Doroteo Ricafort sold a parcel of land to Carolina Gonzales Calderón for ₱1,230, reserving an 18‑month right of repurchase.
– 11 Dec 1894 Carolina resold the same land to Doroteo for the same price. The deed of resale expressly states that Doroteo had “reintegrated” the purchase price before the expiry of any extension of the repurchase right, thereby evidencing that the right to repurchase had not expired.
– Doroteo died intestate on 18 July 1896, leaving heirs Maria Salome Virgenes and his natural son Lucas Ricafort.
– Maria Salome Virgenes died intestate on 29 May 1900. Pablo Trinidad was appointed administrator of her estate on 21 Oct 1903 and filed suit to cancel registrations in Lucas’s name and to declare his conveyances void.
– The trial court held that the 1894 repurchase was void because the 18‑month period had elapsed and that the money used (₱2,600) came from Lucas, thus the transaction was for his benefit.
– Evidence presented at trial showed: (1) the 1894 deed’s clear statement of a valid repurchase; (2) witnesses that Lucas gave ₱2,600 to his father for the purchase; (3) Lucas’s own testimony that Doroteo delivered to him the 1886 deed as a Christmas “present” after the payment; (4) Lucas’s 1898 petition for possessory information stating he had acquired the land from Doroteo by succession; (5) that Lucas possessed and improved the land after Doroteo’s death.
– Later, Lucas sold a portion to Antonio Boncan (11 Nov 1904) with a 2‑year repurchase clause; Boncan relied on the entry of Lucas’s possessory information in the Registry.

ISSUE
Whether Doroteo Ricafort’s 1894 repurchase of the land was valid and thus vested ownership in him (and subsequently in his heirs), and consequently whether the registrations and conveyances made by Lucas Ricafort are void; and what legal effect, if any, the entry of Lucas’s possessory information in the Registry has on third‑party purchasers such as Boncan.

RULING
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment. The deed of resale of 11 Dec 1894 conclusively proves that Doroteo’s right of repurchase had not expired; the transaction was a genuine repurchase by Doroteo, not a conveyance for Lucas’s benefit. The ₱2,600 advanced by Lucas constituted a loan, not a transfer of title. Accordingly, the registrations in Lucas’s name were erroneous and the conveyances he made are void.

Regarding Boncan, Articles 33, 34 and 394 of the Mortgage Law preclude the validation of a null deed by mere registration; thus the entry of Lucas’s possessory information does not protect Boncan.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the case is remanded to (1) determine the precise share of the estate of Doroteo Ricafort in the property at his death, and (2) require an accounting between Lucas Ricafort and the estate of Maria Salome Virgenes for expenses and receipts arising from Lucas’s administration of the land. No costs are awarded.