G.R. No. L-17441 July 31, 1962
Welgo Dichoso, et al., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. Laura Roxas, et al., defendants, Celso Borja and Nelia Alanguilan, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Laura Roxas sold a parcel of land to defendants-appellants Celso Borja and Nelia Alanguilan under a pacto de retro sale for P850, with a repurchase period of five years. Subsequently, Roxas entered into an agreement with plaintiffs-appellees Welgo Dichoso and Emilia Hernandez. The appellees paid Roxas P770 as an advance, with the understanding that after the three-year prohibitive period, Roxas would execute an absolute sale of the same land to them for a total of P2,000. The P850 portion of this sum was to be used to repurchase the property from the appellants. On July 5, 1957, Roxas executed a private document (Exhibit I) acknowledging receipt of the P770. However, on December 13, 1957, before the appellees could effect the repurchase, Roxas executed an absolute deed of sale over the property in favor of the appellants for an additional P1,684. The appellees then filed an action to compel Roxas to execute the absolute sale in their favor and to compel the appellants to reconvey the property to them.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the appellees have a superior right to the land over the appellants, thereby entitling them to specific performance for its conveyance.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the complaint against appellants Borja and Alanguilan. The Court held that Exhibit I dated July 5, 1957, was not a deed of absolute sale but merely a promise by Roxas to sell the property upon the appellees’ completion of the P2,000 payment, which included the repurchase price. At best, it constituted an assignment of Roxas’s right to repurchase, of which the appellants had no knowledge until December 1957. Critically, on December 13, 1957, Roxas executed an absolute deed of sale in favor of the appellants. This act extinguished her right to repurchase, leaving her with nothing further to assign or sell to the appellees. Consequently, the sale to the appellants was of the property itself, while the transaction with the appellees was only a promise to assign a future right or an assignment of that right. Article 1544 of the Civil Code on double sale does not apply, as the objects of the two transactions were different. The appellants, as purchasers in good faith without notice of the prior assignment, acquired valid title. The appellees’ remedy lies solely against Roxas for the recovery of the sums paid under Exhibit I.