G.R. No. L‑3483
December 21, 1907

FACTS:
– Benito Mojica sold three parcels to Pedro Sanchez (deceased) on 22 Oct 1894 for ₱15,000 with a venta con pacto de retro (sale with right of repurchase) exercisable within four years.
– After the four‑year period lapsed, Sanchez consolidated title in his name.
– Subsequently the parties entered a verbal agreement for Sanchez to resell the lands to Mojica on demand, and later a written lease dated 1 Dec 1901: Sanchez leased the property to Mojica for ten years at ₱1,800 per annum (interest 12% on ₱15,000), granting Mojica a right to repurchase the land for the original price at the end of the term.
– Mojica paid the monthly rent of ₱150 until Sanchez’s death; the widow/executrix continued to receive the rent.
– In May 1905 the administratrix (defendant) raised the rent to ₱350 and refused the ₱150 tendered.
– Mojica sued to (1) declare the original sale a loan secured by mortgage and annul the consolidation entry; alternatively, to have the 1901 private lease and repurchase agreement recorded as a public document and to annul the consolidation entry.

ISSUE:
Whether the 1901 private lease‑repurchase contract, which was not reduced to a public instrument, may be enforced against the estate’s administratrix, and whether the plaintiff may compel the heirs (or their representatives) to execute a public document under Articles 1279‑1280 of the Civil Code.

RULING:
– The Court affirmed that a venta con pacto de retro is a valid contract; the consolidation in Sanchez’s name stands.
– The 1901 private lease‑repurchase contract, although not in a public document, is not void for exceeding six years because the heirs of the deceased are not “third persons” under Article 1280; they step into the decedent’s juridical personality (Art. 661 Civil Code, Art. 27 Mortgage Law).
– Consequently, the heirs may be compelled in a proper action to execute the required public instrument (Art. 1279), but such relief cannot be obtained in the present suit against the administratrix, who is not a party to that separate action.
– The trial court’s judgment was reversed; costs were awarded against the plaintiff in the lower court, but the plaintiff retains the right to file a distinct action against the heirs to compel execution of a public document.

Thus, the lease‑repurchase agreement remains enforceable, but the plaintiff must sue the heirs directly to obtain a public registration; the administratrix is not liable for that relief.