G.R. No. L-6787, December 4, 1911
JUAN MERCADO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENCIO NOEL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In 1903, Matea Rosales leased a parcel of land to Florencio Noel, who built a camarin on it. Matea died in 1904, and her niece Filomena Rosales inherited the property. On February 15, 1905, Filomena sold a parcel of land to Juan Mercado under a pacto de retro (sale with right to repurchase). The plaintiff Mercado claimed this sale included the entire land inherited from Matea, encompassing the portion leased to Noel. In contrast, the defendant Noel asserted that the sale excluded the leased portion. On March 21, 1905, Filomena executed a written instrument transferring the leased land to Noel. Filomena later died intestate. In 1907, Mercado filed a claim against Filomena’s estate for the debt from the pacto de retro, which was allowed. The estate administrator then sold the land at public auction to satisfy the claim, advertising it as all land inherited from Matea, including the portion claimed by Noel. Noel protested the sale but the administrator proceeded. Mercado purchased the land and subsequently filed an action to quiet title and for mandatory injunction against Noel, who remained in possession. The trial court ruled in favor of Mercado, declaring him the owner and ordering restitution of possession.

ISSUE

Whether the pacto de retro sale from Filomena Rosales to Juan Mercado included the land leased and later sold to Florencio Noel.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the complaint. The Court found that the land described in the pacto de retro (30.48 meters front by 30.88 meters deep) did not match the dimensions of the entire lot inherited from Matea Rosales (38.30 meters front by 33.30 meters deep). The discrepancy in measurements indicated a clear intention to exclude the portion occupied by Noel from the sale to Mercado. The land in dispute, located at the corner of the larger lot, corresponded to the difference in dimensions between the two descriptions. Nothing in the record suggested that the parties intended to convey more land than described in the pacto de retro. Consequently, the pacto de retro did not include the land leased to Noel. Therefore, Filomena’s subsequent sale of that land to Noel was valid, making Noel the owner. The administrator’s sale of the land to Mercado was ineffective as to the disputed portion, since the estate no longer owned it at the time of the sale.