G.R. No. L-3031 March 15, 1951
AMANDA MADAMBA VDA. DE ADIARTE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMILIANA TUMANENG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Amanda Madamba Vda. de Adiarte (plaintiff-appellee) owned two parcels of land in Banna, Ilocos Norte. On February 25, 1929, she sold these lands to the spouses Cirilio Agudong and Emiliana Tumaneng (defendant-appellant) for P1,100, with a right to repurchase within ten years. The vendees registered the deed on February 29, 1944. On April 6, 1944, after the ten-year redemption period had expired, the vendor offered to repurchase the lands. Cirilio Agudong initially refused but later relented, executing a handwritten document (Exhibit A) in Ilocano (translated into Spanish) stating he agreed to allow the repurchase but with the condition that he could work the land for two more agricultural years, after which the vendor could pay the repurchase price and the registration in his favor would be cancelled. Cirilio Agudong died in October 1944. After April 6, 1946, the vendor offered the repurchase price to the widow, Emiliana Tumaneng, who refused to accept it and reconvey the property. The plaintiff filed an action for specific performance to compel the widow to accept the P1,100 and execute a deed of sale. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court as involving only questions of law.

ISSUE

1. Whether the promise to sell (Exhibit A) signed by the late Cirilio Agudong is lawful and valid.
2. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the appellant to accept the repurchase price without impleading the three heirs of the deceased Cirilio Agudong as party defendants.

RULING

1. On the Validity of the Promise to Sell: The Supreme Court held that the promise to sell (Exhibit A) is lawful, valid, and enforceable. After the lapse of the ten-year redemption period, the vendees became the absolute owners of the property. The promise made by Cirilio Agudong to resell the land to the original vendor cannot be considered an extension of the right of repurchase under the original pacto de retro, as that right was already lost. Therefore, Article 1508 of the Civil Code, which prohibits stipulations for redemption beyond ten years, does not apply. The document is a new, independent promise to sell. The term “recomprar” was used colloquially. The promise binds not only Cirilio Agudong’s estate but also his wife, the appellant, as the property, having been acquired during marriage, is presumed conjugal, and the husband’s contract regarding conjugal property binds the wife.
2. On the Failure to Implead the Heirs: The Supreme Court agreed that the children and heirs of Cirilio Agudong should have been made parties to the suit. However, to avoid technicalities and expedite the case, the Court directed the plaintiff-appellee to amend her complaint to implead the children and heirs. If they are minors, the appellant shall represent them as guardian ad litem. If, after service of the amended complaint, no new defense is raised other than those already set up by the appellant and passed upon, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. If a new valid defense is raised, the judgment is set aside, and the trial court is directed to hear evidence and render a new judgment.
Separate Opinions:
Justice Pablo dissented, arguing that Exhibit A was not a valid, independent promise to sell but an attempt to extend the redemption period of the original pacto de retro, which is void under Article 1508 of the Civil Code. He interpreted the document as an extension agreement made under duress (fear due to the insecure conditions during the Japanese occupation) and without consideration, and therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.