ADELA ROSARIO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS VS. MARIA S.F. ROSARIO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

On June 8, 1953, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a contract of
sale with right to repurchase. The land sold is in Binmaley, Pangasinan, and the
period of redemption was to be within one year from June 8, 1953. Unsuccessful
in several attempts to repurchase the property after the stipulated period had
expired, the plaintiffs brought an action in the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan, praying for reconveyance by the defendant. The latter admitted all
the material allegations in the complaint but moved to dismiss it for lack of
cause of action. Judgment was in due course rendered dismissing the complaint.
After denial of their motion for reconsideration, the plaintiffs have taken this
appeal.

Admitting that the transaction herein involved is a “Deeaof Sale with Right
to Repurchase” and the period for redemption had expired, the appellants
contended that the appellee has not as yet acquired any title, in the absence of
any consolidation of ownership in accordance with article 1607 of the new Civil
Code which provides that “in case of real property, the consolidation of
ownership in the vendee by virtue of the failure of the vendor to comply with
the provisions of article 1616 shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property
without a judicial order, after the vendor has been duly heard.”

Appellants’ contention cannot be sustained. Article 1607 is a reproduction of
article 1509 of the old Civil Code to the effect that the vendee shall
irrevocably acquire the ownership of the thing sold upon failure of the vendor
to fulfill what is prescribed in article 1581 (now article 1616). Under both
codal provisions, ownership is consolidated by operation of law in the vendee,
and the vendor loses his rights over the property by the same token. The
requirement of a judicial order in article 1607 is merely for purposes of
registering the consolidation of title which, pursuant to the old rule, could be
accomplished by just presenting an affidavit to the Register of Deeds.

The appellants have also missed the proper application of article 1606 of the
new Civil Code which was taken from article 1508 of the old Civil Code, except
the last paragraph which provides for the first time that “the vendor may still
exercise the right to repurchase within thirty days from the time final judgment
was rendered in a civil action on the basis that the contract was a true sale
with right to repurchase.” The new provision contemplates a case involving a
controversy as to the true nature of the contract, and the court is called upon
to decide whether it is sale with pacto de retro or an equitable
mortgage. In he case at bar, the transaction is admittedly a deed of sale and
the stipulated period of redemption had expired.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed with costs against the
appellants. So ordered.

Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion., Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.